December 19, 1975
Page 42252
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, it is my understanding of the President's remarks in recent weeks that he favored a tax cut if there was an expression in favor of reducing expenditures. The bill that was sent to him reduced taxes for a period of 6 months and had no such provision in there. It was vetoed. Now we have before us a bill that was passed today, which has certain language of the Senate that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance presented.
My understanding of the Senate language which was passed this morning is that the Congress is committed to the proposition that if they undertake to extend tax cuts beyond the first 6 months of the next calendar year, they expect to do it by balancing it with reductions in expenditures, barring any unforeseen events or changes in the economy. Is that correct?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. CURTIS. Based upon the conversations of the chairman of the Finance Committee with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the statement that has been read, does the chairman believe that, in essence, that is the intention of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives?
Mr. LONG. Yes, I do. I have not the slightest doubt about it.
Mr. CURTIS. I want to say to my chairman that I believe spending ceilings, as well as language referring to reduction of expenditures, are targets and objectives and nothing more. It expresses the intent of the Congress at that time. Congress at a later time can take such action as the circumstances warrant at that time. Is that correct?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. CURTIS. Certainly we cannot control a subsequent Congress after there has been an election.
I believe that the strength of statements of intention to reduce expenditures, and actual ceilings that are in the statute, depend upon the good faith of the Members of Congress who make those statements and who back them up.
I have utmost confidence in the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance, but for the record I would like to ask him, is it the intention of the chairman of the Committee on Finance, assuming no drastic changes in the peace and war situation or in the economy of the country, to proceed with any tax cuts beyond the present measure unless Congress applies itself to the task of cutting expenses?
Mr. LONG. That is the way I construe it. Please understand, I would expect that we will go through the same type of budgetary reasoning that the President is going through. The President starts with a figure, and then the President takes the view that from that figure, if there are to be tax cuts, then there must be spending cuts to offset them.
Our Budget Committee might arrive at a somewhat different figure. I predict that that figure will not be very far from the President's figure. I doubt very much,based on the study that I have been able to make of this matter and the information that I have had from those who are conversant with it, but that that budget figure will probably be within 1 percent of what the President's figure is. It is not going to be come great departure, as some suspect.
If that is the case, and I believe that is how it will be, when we come back here and see what the President's budget is and what the Budget Committee recommends, then we are going to have to approach the Budget Committee and say, "We would like to continue this tax cut," and we are going to have to have spending cuts."
In some respects, we will have the President on our side, because the President is suggesting, from a starting point which he believes is $423 billion, a much larger tax cut than that, a $28 billion tax cut. So he will apparently be suggesting spending cuts of about $28 billion. If we want to continue our tax cut, which on an annual basis will work out to about $17 billion, we will have to look at the areas where he is suggesting cutting spending and say, "We can find about $17 billion of that $28 billion that we can support, if our figures on spending agree to begin with."
If our figure is somewhat higher, we still have the problem that we are going to have to find the amount representing what we believe are items which do not have a high enough priority to rate keeping them in the budget when compared to a tax cut.
Mr. CURTIS. I understand that it is difficult to discuss figures, because the arrangement of the figures could mean different things to different people. I think it is easier to state it as a matter of principle. At the present time, at least,and next year if we have further tax cuts, we will have to make those tax cuts by increasing the deficit, or make those tax cuts by cutting spending. Is it fair to say that it is the Senator's intention, if we have those tax cuts, to bring them about by cutting spending rather than increasing the deficit? Is that correct?
Mr. LONG. Yes. I expect to go to the Budget Committee at the beginning of the next Congress — something I have not done before, let me say, because we have not had the procedure until this year — and say, "Here is this tax cut that we would like to continue, and we want to ask you to find a place for this in the budget. That will mean you are going to have to squeeze out some items that are of the lowest priority of the things you would like to do."
The Budget Committee will have that difficult problem of trying to suggest, of all these good things we would like to do,where some could come off from one place and some from another so that we could finance this $17 billion from that budget. That is a difficult task, but that would be the problem of the Budget Committee.
Mr. CURTIS. Is it the Senator's understanding that the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives also feels that further tax cuts should come about by way of expenditure cuts, rather than increases in the deficit that might exist otherwise?
Mr. LONG. That is what the commitment is, but I want to make it clear that I do not want to go beyond the language of what we agreed to here.
For example, we said when we passed our amendment, which to me is much easier to understand than the other amendment:
If the Congress recommends a continuation of the tax reduction provided by this Act for the remainder of the calendar year 1976, Congress shall provide for reductions in the level of spending which would otherwise occur
I am going to leave out the dollar for dollar, but that is what it means
Mr. CURTIS. It means substantially in the same amounts, does it not?
Mr. LONG. Provided in the fiscal year 1977.
I would point out that if we carefully read that language, we will find out that the period of time for which we are committing ourselves is the remainder of the calendar year 1976.
Mr. CURTIS. That is correct.
Mr. LONG. So we are making a commitment for a 6 months period.
Mr. CURTIS. That is correct. Before I yield the floor, and I shall not take much time, I would like to have the attention of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.
I feel that the Budget Committee should early make a request upon every committee of the Senate for them, by oversight hearings or in such a manner as they choose, to examine the agencies, bureaus, and departments under their jurisdiction and come up with some recommendations as to what is not of great importance and might be eliminated.
I believe in every department of the Government there are some things that perhaps accomplish some service, but are not of major importance. I do not wish to be critical of the procedure for this first year, because it is the beginning year. But certainly if the Budget Committee just sends out word to the committees for information as to how much money is required, we are going to end up with an enormous figure, and more than we can collect the taxes to pay for.
I am not submitting this as a question. I merely, as one Member of the Senate, express the hope that the Budget Committee will place a burden upon every legislative committee to exercise such oversight, supervision, and inquiry into the departments under their jurisdiction that they can bring about some savings that will not hinder the public service rendered, and certainly will not take benefits away from the poor and unfortunate, because there are ways to cut expenses besides just saying, "It cannot be done because we will hurt the poor."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator did not put that as a question. Let me say that I share with him, indeed, with Congress through its committees to exercise its oversight responsibilities in the way that he suggests. Indeed, the Budget Act imposes or restates that obligation on the part of Congress.
In addition, the Senator may be interested to know that I am in the process of developing what I might refer to now as spending reform legislation designed to more effectively evaluate performance both in terms of achieving the objectives of programs and in terms of cost effectiveness.
We are also undertaking to recommend moving in the direction of zero base budgeting which, as the Senator knows, requires that we evaluate spending requests not only in terms of continuing what we are now doing but in terms of examining what we are now doing so we may rejustify it if it can be rejustified in the light of current priorities. So the Senator's question reallyhits the target pretty well as far as I am concerned.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
I firmly believe that it is false propaganda for us to take the view that the only way to strive toward a cut in expenditures is to deprive some people, who cannot do for themselves and who are entitled to Government benefits and services of these benefits and services. I think if we reexamine every activity of Government we can take enough away from those people able to provide for themselves to reduce expenditures where we can live with a balanced budget.
I thank the distinguished chairman for his assurances and the expression of what he expects to do.
Mr. President, I shall momentarily yield the floor. It has been stated here that the House language intends to do that which the Senate language provided and that we are committed to the proposition that future tax cuts are not to be made by increasing the deficit but rather by effecting economies. That is the commitment that the Senate and the House have committed themselves to strive for.
I want that legislative record made. As for me, I stated this morning that I could not vote for a tax cut, even an extension of the cut, as long as we had a deficit of the size it is. That is still my position. The case was made this morning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to concur was agreed to.