September 16, 1976
Page 30706
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what is involved here is the Roth amendment, which would provide college tuition tax credits. It is an issue that was raised in debate on the tax bill earlier this year, and I doubt that much can be added in comment on its merits or demerits. Nevertheless, I think, in order to insure that the record is reasonably complete on both sides of the issue, I will make some brief observations.
The tuition tax credit offered by Senator ROTH would provide a credit against taxes paid equal to 100 percent of the first $100 in tuition and fees paid for higher education in the last 6 months of 1977, rising to $150 for these types of expenses paid in 1978, $200 in 1979, and $250 in 1980 and subsequent years. The person for whom the credit is claimed must be a full time student in college or vocational school.
The revenue loss resulting from enactment of this provision will be:
Revenue Loss (in millions)
Fiscal year:
1977 0
1978 $467
1979 711
1980 926
1981 1,103
This is a 5 year total of $3.2 billion. With respect to the issues raised, let me make these points:
The credit is likely to be largely or entirely reflected in increased tuition costs. Educational institutions, knowing this gift is being provided to virtually all their students, are likely to increase their tuition costs. When this occurs, taxpayers will not benefit at all from enactment of this provision.
The second point I would make, Mr. President, is that many students attend land grant colleges whose tuitions are extremely low as a result of direct subsidization. These persons would receive the full benefits of the credit, even though their college costs are already heavily subsidized.
On the other hand, since the credit constitutes a relatively small fraction of full time private college costs, it will provide relatively little relief to parents whose children attend private colleges.
The relative low level of benefits also indicates the strong likelihood that if the credit were enacted in its present form, the level of benefits will be subject to future pressure to be raised substantially, with concurrent large increases in the revenue loss associated with the provision.
I think all of us can anticipate that to happen.
Because the credit is so broadly based, it will provide unnecessary relief to the very wealthy as well as those lower income taxpaying individuals whose dependents receive federally funded or other partial scholarships. Thus, the credit benefits are not efficiently targeted to the middle income class the proponents of the amendment seek to assist.
The tuition credit was not the subject of hearings by the Committee on Finance or any other recent congressional hearings. The likely effects of the credit, including all of the foregoing problems which I have described, have not been closely analyzed.
In order to avoid any revenue impact on the fiscal year 1977 budget, this massive credit was formulated to take effect July 1, 1977, almost a year from now, as though the budgets for subsequent years are of no concern to those who are now Members of the Senate.
Mr. President, it is true that insofar as the 1977 budget resolution is concerned this amendment will have no deleterious effect. But we have learned that if we are to get the budget under control we must begin to think about the down year effects of spending proposals that are written into law.
Since this amendment would not take effect until July 1, 1977, then it seems to me that implementation of this costly credit easily could be fully considered before that time. I think that if we are to act within the spirit of the budget resolution we ought to delay action until that time.
Otherwise, cumulative, beginning with fiscal year 1978 through fiscal year 1981, we will be writing into law a budget loss of $3.2 billion in revenues before we know what the claims on those revenues may be, when we get to those budget years.
For that reason, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on August 5 of this year, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed this college tuition tax credit as an amendment to the tax reform bill by a 68 to 20 vote. This amendment provides tax credits for higher education expenses, beginning with a $100 tax credit in 1977, and increasing by $50 per year to a $250 tax credit in 1980 and thereafter.
The House-Senate conference committee voted to delete the college tax credit amendment from the final version of the tax reform bill after making a commitment to bring the provision up for separate votes in the Senate and House this session.
I believe there is an urgent need to act on this important provision before Congress adjourns for the year. In the past few years, the cost of a college education has skyrocketed, depriving more and more qualified students from obtaining a college education. Especially hard hit are the millions of middle-income families who are neither affluent enough to afford the high cost of college today nor poor enough to qualify for the many different Government assistance programs which their taxes make possible.
These middle-income families deserve a tax break. They are not asking for a Government handout. They merely want to retain a greater share of their earnings to help pay for their children's college education. The increasing cost of a college education, combined with inflation, unemployment and rising tax burdens, has made it virtually impossible for many families to send their children to college, and tax relief is necessary to assure that all Americans have an equal access to higher education.
Although some concern has been expressed about the budgetary impact of this provision, I believe the revenue impact represents a worthwhile and necessary investment in the future of our country. The Federal Government is spending billions of dollars a year to bail out badly run cities, billions on foreign aid, and billions on Government travel and frills. It makes no sense to spend so much for these and other questionable purposes and to deny tax assistance to the millions of heavily taxed working parents who are struggling to finance a college education for their sons and daughters. I should also point out that the college tax credit was carefully structured so as not to violate the second budget resolution, and there is no revenue impact in fiscal 1977.
Mr. President, I am disappointed that the final version of the tax reform bill does not contain the college tax credit amendment. However, I am pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee (Mr. LONG) and the other Senate conferees were able to obtain a firm commitment from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman ULLMAN and the other House conferees to bring the college tax credit up for a separate vote. As I mentioned earlier, the Senate endorsed this provision by a 68 to 20 vote and I am confident the House will also pass this measure if given a chance to vote on the provision. By acting today, the Senate can give the House the opportunity to live up to its commitment to vote on this measure providing tax relief to working parents, and I urge the Senate to reenact the college tuition credit and send it to the House for a final vote.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I. support the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) which would provide an income tax credit for parents paying college tuition.
I regret to see that this amendment, which was passed by the Senate as a provision of the Tax Reform Act, was dropped by the conference. I believe it is highly appropriate for the Senate to reaffirm its commitment to this tax reform measure.
In this time of rising educational costs, parents with children in post-secondary schools need a tax break. This amendment would give a tax credit for expenses incurred by parents with children in institutions of higher education and vocational schools.
Mr. President, I am of the opinion that education of our citizens is essential in order to preserve America's position as the world leader. This amendment would aid the attainment of the educational goals of many of our citizens. I urge its favorable consideration.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK) may be added as a cosponsor to the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GARY HART). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Vote!
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. (Putting the question.)
SEVERAL SENATORS. Aye.
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ayes appear to have it.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CURTIS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment of theamendment and the third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read a third time, the question is, Shall it pass? (Putting the question.)
SEVERAL SENATORS. Aye.
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ayes appear to have it.
The bill (H.R. 1386) , as amended, was passed.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist upon its amendment and request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. LONG, Mr. TALMADGE, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. HANSEN, and Mr. ROTH conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed with the amendment of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make any necessary technical and clerical correctionsin the engrossment of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1386.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second 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.
SMITH COLLEGE — H.R. 1386
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote by which the motion to reconsider the vote by which H.R. 1386 was agreed to be the subject of a yea and nay vote.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, were we not going to move to reconsider the vote by which it was agreed to?
Mr. LONG. What I am proposing is that we vote on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed. The intent is that then that would be regarded as a vote on the issue.
Obviously, it is one of those backward votes where a vote to reconsider is a vote against the bill and a vote not to reconsider is a vote in favor of the bill.
Mr. ALLEN. So it would not be a tabling motion. It would be a motion up and down on reconsidering the vote by which the bill was agreed to.
Mr. LONG. Yes. Of course, that is subject to a motion to table; but if we can have a limitation, I will not make a motion to table.
Mr. ALLEN. I still am not getting it quite back to the point, but it would be better than having it removed one degree further over.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be one-half hour, equally divided, 15 minutes by those who favor the bill and 15 minutes by those who oppose the bill as amended, so that both sides might state their position prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Does the Senator intend to make the motion to reconsider?
Mr. LONG. What I am asking for, Mr.President, is this: I have asked unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes on each side. Mr. ROTH should manage the time in opposition to the motion to reconsider, and I believe Mr. ALLEN would manage the time in favor of the motion to reconsider. We would then proceed to vote on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
The reason I suggested it in that fashion is that we would like to bring this matter to a decision and, by voting on the motion to reconsider, those who are in favor of the bill can let it be known by voting against reconsideration and those who are for reconsideration would obviously be against the bill as amended. The key point is whether or not you are in favor of the amendment dealing with the taxpayers' paying for education. I simply do not want to get the bill into a situation where it is subject to amendment and then further amendments.
Mr. ALLEN. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Louisiana's agreeing to this procedure. Actually, on the vote by which the bill was passed, there was no motion to reconsider that vote and of course, there was no tabling motion.
So the matter is properly before the Senate, can properly be brought up. On the other hand, a motion to table could be made as soon as the Senators get recognition.
I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Louisiana's agreeing that there might be a limited debate on this motion,because I believe we may have acted in haste in what we have done to pass an amendment of this magnitude on a voice vote, with some four or five Senators in the Chamber. The Senator from Alabama having been one of them, he feels he was derelict in his responsibility in not having a roll call vote at the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will some Senator make a motion to reconsider?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I make the motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and the time agreement, the motion to reconsider is to be considered.
Mr. LONG. I am not agreeing to the motion to reconsider. I want to vote on the motion to reconsider.
Mr. ALLEN. I have not made the motion yet.
Mr. LONG. Mr. MANSFIELD made the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana made the motion.
Mr. LONG. I ask that the yeas and naysbe ordered on the motion to reconsider, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
This bill allowing taxpayers credit for college tuition is a principle that I approve. I voted for this issue when it was before the Senate, when the tax bill was under consideration. I did that because there were literally scores of other issues involving revenues — raising revenues and reducing revenues. I thought that this principle was a principle that should be supported and considered along with other revenue raising or lowering proposals.
This matter was considered by the conference committee. It was rejected by the conference committee. Now the conference committee comes back and gives us the result of their fine work — and it was fine work — in the committee. They chose to give priority to other revenue reducing measures. They chose, of course, to have the extension of the tax cuts, which was a tremendous cost to the Treasury. It was my amendment here, on the floor, that extended that reduction and that credit through 1977. I supported that.
Now, the conference committee has come back with a bill that, aside from the extension of the tremendous tax cuts granted in 1974, produces additional revenue of $1.6 billion. But, now, this bill or this amendment, I shall call it, undoes a large portion of the work of the conference committee. So we come in and say, "Gee, we are fiscally responsible. The Committee on the Budget said to save $2 billion on tax reform, and we came up to $1.6 billion; therefore, we have almost complied with the direction of the Committee on the Budget." That was the issue here, on the floor, whether we would drive for the recommendations of the Budget Committee or whether we would fall far short of that.
Now we have the words of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, showing that this bill that was passed in the Senate, without one bit of discussion, without one single bit of discussion, without a roll call vote and with only four to five Senators on the floor. It has been drawn from nowhere, added to a bill, involving some $2,000, and added as an amendment. This will be approved over in the other Chamber and sent down to the President. He will be put on the spot.
That is of no great concern to me, but I do not believe it is the way we ought to legislate.
The conference committee, in its wisdom, composed of the tax experts — one of whom was the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, the foremost tax authority in the entire United States — saw fit in their wisdom to discard this amendment. Why? Because, Mr. President, according to what Mr. MUSKIE says, this bill, even though its application is delayed for 1 year, would cost the Treasury $3.2 billion. That is undoing some one-half of the work of the conference committee.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. ALLEN. In just one moment, I will.
They labored for years. We had this matter up on the floor for weeks and weeks, and the conference committee devoted weeks to it. And here, in one fell swoop — and I use that phrase advisedly, one fell swoop — we are going to destroy, to the extent of $3.2 billion, the fine work of the conference committee.
What I am doing here is trying to stand by the conference committee and support the fine work of the chairman of the conference committee, the chairman of the Committee on Finance. I hope we will reconsider the vote by which this bill was passed, because all that is in it, really, is this tax cut. But it is not realistic to do all of this work, have the conference committee drop it, and then, with four or five Senators here, insert this measure, which will cost the taxpayers $3.2 billion in a period of 4 years.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. LONG. I hope the Senator understands that a great number of people knew about this matter. We had it in open conference, and when we discussed the matter, the chairman of the House conferees, Mr. ULLMAN, said that the House would not agree to this amendment on this bill, but that if we would send it to them on some other bill, they would be willing to go to conference and see what they could work out with us. So this amendment was deleted on that basis. That was an open conference, and everybody knew about that; that is, all the press knew about it.
We had a lot better attendance by the press there than we have here, I might say. They were far more numerous, even though I see some of the same people in the press gallery now who were over there at the time. So everybody knew what we were going to do.
Furthermore, I explained this matter to the majority leaders, and I explained this matter to those on the minority side. Also, I asked that this matter be explained to the Democratic Policy Committee, that we would seek to vote on some measure to send this bill back to conference, because it was a measure supported by an overwhelming majority of the Senate, about 68 to 20, and Mr. ROTH would have every right to fight against the conference report and resist it because adequate consideration had not been given to his amendment and it could go to conference on some other measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. ALLEN. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana could use time on the other side, because we are on opposite sides.
I announce that the distinguished occupant of the chair (Mr. HASKELL) would like to be associated with my remarks with respect to this amendment. I appreciate that, coming as it does from one of the leading tax reformers in the Senate and a member of the committee.
At this time, I am going to yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Maine desires.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Alabama, and I am happy to associate myself with the initiative he has taken here this afternoon.
This issue, as I indicated earlier today in remarks that Members can find in the RECORD, is there is a down year cost to this amendment which is significant.
I recall the debate on this issue at the time of the tax legislation, which we will take up later today, hopefully, and it is argued that because the impact is in the down years after fiscal year 1977, which is governed by the congressional budget resolution, that we need not be concerned about it.
But, as I pointed out earlier this morning, if we are ever to get a handle on the budget in one of these down years, we have got to be concerned about spending decisions that we write into law which will catch up with us in those down years.
The table I put in the RECORD this morning indicates that over the next 5 years although the costs, budget costs, in 1977 will be zero, the budget costs in the next 4 years will be $3.2 billion, and in fiscal 1981, the fourth of those 4 years, it will be $1.1 billion, and still climbing.
The second point I made this morning was that in the case of land grant colleges where tuitions are low, this will be of significant help to students. But they are already subsidized by the States in which the land grant colleges are located.
With respect to private college tuitions, the assistance offered by this amendment is really only a small part of the total tuition costs and the cost of fees. That being the case, the pressure is going to be upon us, once we write this into law, to increase the benefits to pick up a larger share of the costs of tuition and of fees. So we can predict, I think with considerable justification, if we make this beginning before 1981 we will be pressed to increase it, so that the tax credit will pick up a larger share of the cost of college tuition and fees, with a substantial increased budgetary impact on the current budget whenever that takes place.
So this is a very significant initiative from the point of view of the Federal budget. It is one of those places where we can today reduce the pressures on future Federal budgets.
I have heard a lot of Members of the Senate express concern about the fact that we have a deficit this year. Well, one of the reasons why we have a deficit as large as it is this year is because of commitments we made in previous years which are written into law and as to which we have no control.
If we write this one into law, then future Budget Committees are going to be confronted with even a greater challenge. They will not be able to deny funding for this provision in future years.
So I hope, Mr. President, we are not tempted too often by the argument that was made by the Senator from Delaware when he presented this amendment earlier this year that, "Well, my colleagues,there is no budget impact in fiscal 1977, so we do not need to worry about it."
Well, I worry about it. I am running for reelection this year. I may not be around after this year, but if I am, and I am still charged with this responsibility, I will be very worried about the down year costs of this amendment.
When, as I said this morning, the benefit to the parents of college students is illusory, as it is in this case, then I see nothing to be gained for anybody because I know once we write this into law, boards of trustees of colleges are going to say to themselves, as they consider their rising costs, "Well now, the Congress has approved a tax credit for the students coming here. Why do we not increase our tuition by the amount of that tax credit? It would not cost the students anything because Uncle Sam is going to pick up the costs."
So I predict within 12 months this benefit will be washed out by boards of trustees of colleges and educational institutions from one end of this country to the other.
What will we have done? We will have stimulated a rise in college tuitions which will then be more burdensome upon those parents of students who do not have taxes against which to claim this credit but have to rely upon student loan funds or student scholarship funds — and they do not rise as fast — in order to meet their tuition costs.
So, Mr. President, principally on future budgetary grounds, secondarily on the merit of the issue, I join my good friend from Alabama. I think he has made a responsible statement. The tax bill as it comes back to us, or will later this year, I think, has responded very well indeed to the congressional budget resolution of last spring and the second one which the Senate approved yesterday.
I would hate to see us begin to nibble away at the future year benefits of that improvement by now adding to the bill, in effect, provisions that were struck from the bill in order to make it more budgetarily responsible.
For that reason, Mr. President, I join my good friend from Alabama in, and compliment him on, bringing this to a record vote.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
As the distinguished Senator knows full well, this particular proposal for a tax credit for college tuition was debated at great length during the consideration of the tax reform legislation.
I think it should be pointed out to the distinguished Senator from Alabama that in the conference committee report it was stated that this provision was deleted with the specific understanding that the matter would be brought up for a separate vote both in the House and in the Senate.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
Mr. LONG. Not only is it pointed out in the statement of the managers but, in addition to that, it was made clear in that big room, where we had as many people sitting there as are in the Senate galleries, which are well attended now, with all the people packed in, and with better attendance than the Senate has at this moment. I noticed this morning that the Senate has more newspaper reporters in the gallery than ordinarily. So there was tremendous attendance of the press, the media, at the time this was all explained, that if the Senate conferees yielded on this item they would bring it back to conference on some other bill.
Mr. ROTH. That is correct.
The decision was made in public. It was attended, as the Senator pointed out, not only by many members of the press but the public at large. The conference report was agreed to with the condition and understanding that there was to be this legislation enacted separately.
One of the reasons, as I understand it, they felt that way on the House side was that since they had not had a chance to consider it they should have this opportunity to consider it separately. The distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee agreed to bring it up for a separate vote.
I believe, Mr. President, the same reasons why this was sound legislation a few weeks ago stand today. You may recall recently the Commissioner of Education stepped down from a salary of $37,800 saying he had three children to send to college and he could not afford to do it on that salary.
Well, one of our most serious problems is that you have millions of Americans, middle income, hardworking Americans, making much less, who also have children to send to college, and they are finding it even more difficult to send their own children to college.
I think one of the important points that should be made clear is that middle America, working America, is not asking for a handout. They just want a right to retain some of their own earnings so they can send their children to college or vocational school.
I think this is a very essential part of our program this year. I think many people, many middle Americans, have become disillusioned with the Government because they feel we are always trying to help others and ignoring the taxpaying Americans.
As far as the budget is concerned, let me point out again that this provision will have no impact on the fiscal 1977 budget. It will go into effect on July 1, 1977, when there will be a tax credit of $100, and that is all.
The following year, it will begin to go up $50 per year until finally it reaches $250 per student in 1980.
It seems to me that this is the least we can do to help parents and students offset the rising costs of college.
I would also like to say that I do not have quite the same jaundiced view as Mr. MUSKIE when he claims this tax credit will only result in increased tuition costs. We can make the same argument for any Government program, whether it is a subsidy, direct grant, or a tax credit.
Hopefully, our school administrators are more responsible than that.
What we have here is an opportunity to give a small bit of help or assistance to middle America, to enable their children to go to school.
They are not coming to the Government and asking for a dole or a handout. They are just asking for the opportunity to be able to keep some of their own funds.
I would also like to point out that this is in the form of a tax credit in order to provide equal benefits to all taxpayers, regardless of their income.
Mr. PASTORE. Vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ALLEN. How much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, we have not even approved the tax bill conference report, and before the ink is dry on that, before it is even brought up for consideration, we are undoing the work of that conference report. After the years of preparation, the months of work here in the Senate and in committees, now we are wiping out approximately half of the revenue gained by the work that this committee did.
The committee was awfully anxious to have a good showing, so what they did is prepare a bill that will increase revenues $1.6 billion. Right on the side, though, they apparently are agreeing to pass a bill that in 1981 will cost the Treasury $1,100 million — within a half billion dollars of the entire saving here.
If this had been in the conference report, I would go ahead and vote for the conference report. But the main justification for approving the conference report is to save $1.6 billion, but it will only save half of that if this bill is allowed to stand.
I do not feel we ought to, in one stroke, wipe out over half of the accomplishment of years of work.
When all time has been yielded back, Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum, and it will be a live quorum, in order that we may acquaint Senators as they come on the floor with what is involved in this matter.
I say again that I am for the principle of this amendment and if it had been wrapped up in the tax report, the conference report, and they had effected this saving, I would be for the report. I may still vote for the report.
The PRESIDING 'OFFICER (Mr. STAFFORD) . All time of the Senator from Alabama has expired.
Mr. ALLEN. It will not be quite the report we thought it was if this bill is passed.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, this is not the only item we yielded on that we would like to talk about further.
We had to yield on the energy package which would help to conserve energy. We said there that we were going to try to pass the energy bill and, incidentally, put a tax on to pay for it, a one-half cent tax on a gallon of gasoline for all we would like to do to conserve energy, to insulate homes, and do all these various things that were in our bill, and we want to go to conference with the House.
I hope the Senate will be willing to sustain us in our position of trying to pay for the energy provisions in that bill. If we cannot be sustained, I suspect the bill will be subject to a point of order.
But we made those two commitents in discussing these matters, with regard to which the Senator was very much interested.
We wanted to renew it, either in its own right or some other bill.
For example, to bring the energy bill back up again with the House energy bill they sent us a year ago stricken and the Senate language added in its place, plus a tax to pay for it.
These would not be subject to a point of order, as long as the tax is in it. If it is out of it, it would be subject to a point of order once a budget resolution becomes in effect today.
But Senators know how disappointing it can be to have an amendment drop out when they know it has merit, just as the Senator from Alabama expressed it in regard to a child care matter.
This Senator simply does the best he can to try to accommodate all Senators and the Senate, to help it work its will.
I personally feel, where we vote a tax cut to take place in a previous year, that does not mean we will have an unbalanced budget in that year. It requires us to take it into consideration in terms of how much revenue we will have, and we must either reduce spending or we must raise more revenue.
I am willing to do whatever may be necessary to achieve that result.
I voted for about $4 billion more in taxes than was on that bill that passed the Senate. I did that trying to raise revenue to meet the budgetary objectives, not that I wanted all those taxes, but to try to comply with the spirit of the budget procedure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. LONG. One more minute. I want to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say that I certainly have no objection to the procedure followed in conference in bringing this to the floor as a separate issue. As a matter of fact, that perhaps is another position to deal with. But I think committing us to consider it on the floor does not mean the commitment to pass it.
One reason I like this procedure is that it gives us an opportunity to consider its budgetary implications on the merits of this one issue, and that has been my only point.
I voted against it when it was part of the omnibus tax bill. I will vote against it here for reasons I have amply expressed.
I want the Senate to understand I do not object to the procedure, but I still am concerned about the budgetary effects.
Mr. LONG. I would like to make it clear to the Senator, if I have the time, that I want to work on this, and cooperate on the budget matter. I am sure the Senator wants to cooperate, too. We want to insulate homes in his area.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. LONG. We want to insulate those homes up there. We also want to see if we can get some help passing the tax to pay for it, because part of the idea is that we would try to join forces to see if we could not raise the money to pay for those things we would like to look at for the benefit of the public.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields time?
Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence— has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has not expired.
Does the Senator suggest the absence of a quorum?
Mr. LONG. Senator ROTH yields back the remainder of his time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
QUORUM CALL
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. It will be a live quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:
[Listing of Senators omitted]