December 15, 1975
Page 40544
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think this might be a good point, with somewhat of a lag in floor discussion, to discuss the pending legislation, as chairman of the Budget Committee. I shall speak briefly of the relationship of the tax reductions contained in H.R. 5559 and the requirements of the congressional budget process.
The second concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1976, which is now binding upon Congress, provides for extension of the temporary anti-recession tax cuts of 1975 at a level which will maintain current tax withholding rates until the end of June 1976. The resolution mandated the Finance and Ways and Means Committees to report such legislation — specifically, legislation which would decrease fiscal year 1976 revenues by approximately $6.4 billion less than what they would be under existing law. H.R. 5559 meets this standard.
Extension through June 30, 1976, of the temporary lower withholding rates established last spring will allow adequate time for Congress carefully to develop budget targets for fiscal year 1977 including an overall spending ceiling and revenue floor. These targets will be established in the first concurrent resolution to be adopted by Congress next May. This schedule will allow Congress to establish reasoned and accurate fiscal year 1977 spending and revenue decisions at the first available opportunity under the new congressional budget discipline. If Congress determines at that time to further extend or alter the original 1975 tax reductions, legislation to implement that decision can be enacted before the June 30, 1976 expiration date.
I would also like to take this opportunity to praise the Finance Committee, and particularly its chairman, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Senator LONG, for so closely integrating the vital work of the Finance Committee into the framework of the new congressional budget process. Decisions affecting Government revenue levels are vital both to eliminating future budget deficits and to maintaining the momentum toward economic recovery. Thus, the close coordination of the tax writing committees with the budget process is essential if the process is to be successful.
The fact that H.R. 5559, as reported by the Finance Committee, meets the reconciliation instruction in the second concurrent budget resolution is proof of the commitment of the Finance Committee to the successful working of the new budget process.
Since H.R. 5559 constitutes the first so-called reconciliation bill required to be reported in the Senate under the Budget Act, I would also like to explain very briefly how reconciliation bills fit into the overall budget process.
In recent months, I periodically informed the Senate as to the consistency of various bills with the budget targets established by the first concurrent resolution last spring. Subsequently, the second concurrent budget resolution has just been adopted which establishes binding overall revenue, spending, and debt figures for fiscal year 1976.
The Budget Act provides a special procedure to insure rapid enactment of legislation to bring current congressional legislative programs into line with the figures established in the second concurrent resolution. This legislation — which can affect spending authority, budget authority, revenues, or the public debt limit — is known as a reconciliation bill. After enactment of the reconciliation legislation, the focus of the budget process will shift to insuring that subsequent legislation does not breach the second resolution figures.
The Budget Act provides that legislation subsequent to a reconciliation bill will be subject to a point of order if it causes either expenditures to exceed the relevant spending ceilings or revenues to fall below the revenue floor established in the second concurrent resolution.
With respect to reconciliation bills affecting either spending or revenues, the Budget Act requires they fully carry out the reconciliation instructions given in the second concurrent resolution. The act further provides that no amendment not germane to the provisions of that reconciliation bill is in order.
Therefore, in the case of the present second resolution requirement that fiscal year 1976 revenues be reduced by approximately $6.4 billion, amendments to the reconciliation bill which would further reduce revenues more than $6.4 billion or raise revenues above the $300.8 billion set as the appropriate revenue floor for fiscal year 1976 would be out of order.
The Budget Committee looks forward to working with the Finance Committee in enforcing the revenue floor and spending ceilings after this legislation is adopted.
May I make the point that this is the point at which we move beyond persuasion, which has worked very effectively and to my satisfaction, up to this point, to the discipline of a point of order.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to my good friend.
Mr. HARTKE. How does this bill, which is the pending business, become a reconciliation bill without being designated a reconciliation bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that when we see an apple that looks like an apple, we call it an apple.
Mr. HARTKE. How can we say this bill is the specific reconciliation bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. If it is not that, then it is out of order, as to cutting revenues.
In the first place, I understand the manager of the bill has described it as a reconciliation bill. But beyond that, the only revenue cut that is permitted under the second concurrent resolution is a cut of $6.4 billion. If this bill is not the instrument for achieving that cut, the assumption would have to be, I guess, that a bill is coming along that would. In that case, this bill, being extraneous to that, could be held to be out of order.
But I think that is a semantic discussion. We do not mandate the words. All we do is mandate the action.
When I say "we," I am talking about Congress as a whole.
Mr. HARTKE. In other words, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has made an assumption that this is a reconciliation bill.
Mr. MUSKIE, No, may I say, the chairman of the Committee on Finance has told me it is a reconciliation bill.
Mr. HARTKE. The chairman of the Finance Committee can make a statement, but that does not make it the situation. The Committee on Finance has not acted upon this being a reconciliation bill. There is no record of its being a reconciliation bill; there is no mention of it in the report as being a reconciliation bill. Therefore, I think a point of order would not be well taken in regard to any amendment, because it is not a reconciliation bill. This is a tax reduction bill.
I can see where the Senator may assume, but it is an assumption which is not based on a fact.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I make my point as simply as possible? The second resolution does not permit tax reductions beyond $6.4 billion. If the Senator chooses to say that the proposed tax reduction does not come in a legislative vehicle that could properly be described as a reconciliation bill, still, in my judgment, he cannot escape the point that if it is not that, it is, nevertheless, out of order if it exceeds $6.4 billion.
I really do not know why the Senator is chasing his own tail.
Mr. HARTKE. I am not chasing my tail. I will point out, very simply, that in my judgment, this is a case where two Senators have gotten together and agreed that this is a reconciliation bill and there is nothing in the record to show that it is a reconciliation bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator, I have never discussed this with Senator LONG. If the Senator says I have gotten together with him, the only way in which we have gotten together is that the second concurrent resolution mandates a tax reduction of $6.4 billion and the chairman of the Committee on Finance has reported a bill which reduces revenues approximately $6.4 billion. In that open and nonconspiratorial way have the Committee on Finance and the Committee on the Budget "gotten together," in the words of the Senator.
Mr. HARTKE. Let us avoid any conspiracy, but the fact is that I think there are not very many, if any, Senators on this floor that had the idea that this bill would not be subject to amendment, other than the fact that there was a unanimous consent agreement, which is an entirely different proposition. The germaneness rule only comes into effect if this is a reconciliation bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why does the Senator not test the point? He is not going to persuade me of it.
Mr. HARTKE. I am, but I am asking the Senator from Maine at this point why he contends this is a reconciliation bill when the amount of reduction is $6.1 billion, not $6.4 billion, and therefore has no direct relation. It could just as easily be $100 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, with respect to the question of what I contend, since I was not aware that the point was going to be made an issue of by the Senator, I did not realize that it had to be made the subject of contention.
Second, with respect to meeting the requirements of the second concurrent resolution, if the Senator will look at the language of that resolution, that language refers to a cut of approximately $6.4 billion, which is supposed to continue withholding rates at their present level. That is the definitive description of what is supposed to be achieved by the implementing legislation.
Mr. HARTKE. Let me read the concurrent resolution as it is explained in the Senate report on December 9.
It directs the Ways and MeansCommittee and the Finance Committee to "reduce revenues by $6.4 billion." It does not say approximately.
Mr. MUSKIE. Page 1 of the conference report, which I have in my hand, says the recommended level of Federal revenues is $300.8 billion. "The House committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance shall submit to their respective houses legislation to decrease Federal revenues by approximately $6.4 billion," and the legislative record clearly defines the "approximately" as relating to what is necessary to continue withholding rates at their present levels.
Mr. HARTKE. I have no argument with the fact that, if this were a reconciliation bill and designated a reconciliation bill, and had been done so by the Finance Committee in response to a resolution, then the statement of the Senator from Maine would be correct. But that is not the case.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think they are still correct.
Mr. HARTKE. No, but that is not the case.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then raise the point of order, I say to the Senator. He is not going to persuade me. I do not know toward what objective the Senator is driving.
Mr. HARTKE. What was the reason for the Senator from Maine making that lengthy statement preceding this if no explanation was necessary? Why did the Senator from Maine proceed to explain it to the Senate? I sat here and listened very carefully to every word the Senator said. I have listened to the Parliamentarian explain to me how this procedure works; that in the budget law, it proceeds to direct the Budget Committee to come forward and, if a concurrent resolution is adopted which directs one committee of each body to come forward with a reconciliation bill, then that bill is not subject to any amendments which are not germane. That is, in essence, what is being contended here. That was the explanation, in shorthand, of what the Senator from Maine is contending.
The point I am making is I do not—
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say — incidentally, who has the floor, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TAFT). The Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to respond to the points as the Senator makes them. First of all, he puts me in a role of adversary on a point that had not been brought to my attention before I made my speech. I have no objection to debating it with the Senator, but to put me in the role of adversary on something that had not been brought to my attention, or a contention that had not been presented to me before I rose to speak this afternoon, is something I object to.
Second, with respect to who designates a piece of legislation as meeting the requirements of the budget act as it relates to reconciliation legislation — I assume the Senate as a whole can be the final judge of that question if the question proceeds that far. The purpose of my prepared statement today was to alert the Senate to what the parliamentary issues involved are with respect to reconciliation bills.
If the Senator wants to challenge that point as to whether this is, indeed, a reconciliation bill within the meaning of the Budget Act, that is his prerogative. I do not challenge that. But do not put me in the role of the other man in the ring, may I say to the Senator. I understand this to meet the requirementsof a reconciliation bill.
We have studied it carefully. We discussed it with the Parliamentarian, and I say so to the Senate as a whole. My judgment is not infallible. If the Senator wants to challenge it, to raise a point of order in order that he may offer, I take it, an amendment to this bill contrary to the provisions of the Budget Act, then that is his prerogative, and the Senator has displayed an ability to use his prerogatives on the Senate floor, and I do not challenge his right to do so.
But when you bring an apple to the floor and it looks like an apple and the chairman of the Finance Committee says it is an apple, and under the description of the Budget Act it meets all of the elements of an apple, then I am tempted to call it an apple. But if the Senator chooses to call it an orange, that is his prerogative.
Mr. HARTKE. Let me say to the Senator from Maine he made a statement that he consulted with the Parliamentarian. It is a rather unique operation to consult with the Parliamentarian about something that has no controversy.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, we have been consulting with the Parliamentarian
Mr. HARTKE. Let me say to the Senator from Maine—
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish?
Mr. HARTKE. Can I ask the Senator a question? Why was the Parliamentarian consulted at all upon this matter?
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, I am about to answer that if the Senator would permit me to answer it.
Mr. HARTKE. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Because this is a new procedure enacted into law almost a year and a half ago, we have been consulting with the Parliamentarian for a year and a half to make sure there is a common understanding between the Parliamentarian and those of us who have responsibilities to manage the budget resolutions as to what the road rules are. It is not because we anticipate a specific challenge but because we want to know whether or not we are on track. That is the reason we are in constant consultation.
May I say to the Senator that my staff, the general counsel, interprets the act differently than the Parliamentarian does, and on a number of occasions we have had to resolve those differences in interpretation, and we think that is wise. I am not going to come to this floor blind, not knowing what the Parliamentarian may rule under unanticipated circumstances. So I try to get the best guidance I can. I do not see anything strange about that.
Mr. HARTKE. I would like to ask a question of the Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, and I will explain to the Senator why I am concerned.
It is not a question of something being done that is wrong here. There is no question in my mind this could be the right procedure.
I certainly say if it is the right procedure it was done in a manner which was very haphazard, and certainly was not in accordance with good legislative procedure.
Mr. MUSKIE. I certainly take issue with that.
Mr. HARTKE. I am entitled to my opinion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course, the Senator is, and I am entitled to take issue, which I do.
Mr. HARTKE. Of course.
As to this measure, according to my information, there was only one tax cut enacted on March 29 which has been deleted from this bill. In other words, there is one tax cut, of which I was the author of the amendment, dealing with housing credits. I raised this question in the Committee on Finance, and it was rejected on a tie vote, and I was assured in the Committee on Finance that I would have a chance to raise this question again on the floor of the Senate.
Now we are in a sitution where two things have happened. I agree as far as a unanimous consent arrangement, there is no question about the legality of such a procedure. It certainly is proper, but the procedure which is being followed under the Budget Committee procedure, I assure the Senator from Maine, is a shocking incident to practically all the Senators in this body.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARTKE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, if the Senator wants to have a vote on a particular amendment, and if he has it ready and would like to offer it, I will not object. It is all right with me. I would be willing to give consent to vote on it if the Senate would grant consent to vote on it.
Mr. HARTKE. I would like to get the amendment considered because it is an amendment which, I think, has a great deal of merit, and was the only item which was deleted. It has practically no budgetary implications whatsoever for fiscal 1976. But I really think in the long run the bigger issue is the Senate ought to know that what in effect you have re-instituted here under the budgetary process are the old rules, you have instituted the closed rule system of the House of Representatives, and that is exactly what has been done here, and what you have in effect here is a bill which is operating under a closed rule. I am not talking about the unanimous consent agreement, that is an entirely different proposition. But under the law and procedures which have been set forth here, if this is and was a reconciliation bill, if it is that, then in effect what you have instituted is the closed rule concept of the House of Representatives. I do not believe the Senate intended to do that, but that is the net effect of it.
Mr. LONG. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, let me make this clear: Prior to the time this matter came up we had already agreed by unanimous consent a day or so ago — in fact, it was Friday of last week — we had agreed and we had discussed and then it was said, well, there might be some objections, so let us wait a while.
We came back after about 4 hours and discussed it again, and then we entered into an agreement that amendments must be germane.
The Senator might not have known about that and so, as far as I am concerned, with regard to this particular amendment, the Senator has a lot of equity to his side because he had offered it in the committee, and if the Senator wants to offer it, it will be all right with me. But I think in view of the fact that the unanimous consent agreement was entered into at a time when it was discussed on the floor, and thereafter there was a period of about 3 or 4 hours before it was discussed again, and then it was agreed that amendments must be germane, I think that every Senator who might want to object ought to be privileged to know that I have no objection. It is all right with me and, so far as I am concerned, I would be willing to ask consent that the Senator's amendment could be offered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me make two other points that may, hopefully, throw some light on this.
In the first place, the Budget Act requires that the Committee on Finance shall act promptly when it is mandated — that is the word "promptly," when it is mandated — to report a reconciliation bill. Now they have reported this one properly. It meets the specifications.
The second point I make is that the only limitation we impose — and by that I mean the second concurrent resolution which Congress has adopted — is an approximately $6.4 billion tax reduction.
If I understand the price tag on this bill, it is somewhere between $6.13 billion and $6.27 billion. We have not been able to nail down those numbers yet. But to the extent that amendments on the floor would reflect further reductions in revenue up to $6.4 billion, I suppose the germaneness issue would not arise as to them. It is only if they go beyond the $6.4 billion that the strictures of the Budget Act would apply. I am talking now about the Budget Act and its implications.
Now, whether or not from a practical point of view, in terms of trying to meet the confrontation with the President as posed by this, we ought to avoid other amendments, that is another matter. It has nothing to do with the Budget Act. But insofar as the Budget Act is concerned, all it mandates is a reduction in taxes of not more than $6.4 billion. The bill before us does not go that far. To the extent that other amendments would increase tax reductions up to that amount, they would not run afoul, I take it, of the Budget Act or the second resolution.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. HARTKE. First, let me point out the housing credit amendment I have intended to offer does not violate the totality of the concurrent resolution. But, as I understand the parliamentary procedure, the budget law would not alone apply to the amount but, under the interpretation of the budget law, that the law provides under section 301 that any amendment must be germane to the bill and not germane to the amount, germane to the contents of the bill as it comes out of the committee, and not to the basic law of the land. In other words, it cannot relate simply to any matter dealing with taxation. It has to deal specifically, as the old closed rules of the House operated, it has to deal specifically with a matter in the bill, and since there is no housing credit amendment, no housing credit provision, in the bill, then any measure dealing with the housing credit is non-germane and, therefore, is not to be considered, and that would apply to any other amendment that any other Member of the Senate would want to propose unless there is a specific item in the bill itself dealing with this subject.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am afraid I am not parliamentarian enough to judge those implications of the President's proposed amendments, aside from the revenue implications.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. HARTKE. Yes.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, in view of the fact that the tax credit amendment was part of the 1975 tax cut bill and in view of the fact that the amendment was considered in the Committee on Finance on this occasion and it failed on a tie vote, I believe that it would be well, if the Senator would like, that he would be privileged to offer that amendment.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana might offer his amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with regard to the extension of the housing credit as an amendment to the bill—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOLE. Reserving the right to object, and I shall be constrained to object, unless, as I understand the parliamentary situation, we are not even entitled to offer a motion to recommit the bill, is that correct, with instructions?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to recommit except the motion to recommit with instructions to report back within a specified number of days, not to exceed 3, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, is not in order.
Mr. DOLE. That a motion to recommit with instructions to report back within 3 days would be in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, that is the exception in the law.
Mr. LONG. That makes the exception.
Mr. DOLE. Further reserving the right to object, and perhaps I can agree to the request if we could have a brief quorum call so I could check the specific—
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wonder if I might not yield the floor. I think I have made whatever contribution I can with discussion to the problem.
I will be on the floor, but there is another matter I want to attend to in connection with this bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOLE. Reserving the right to object—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOLE [continuing]. And I suggest the absence of a quorum on the basis that the Senator from Kansas be recognized and not lose his right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I assume this is charged to the time in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be charged to the opposition.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.