June 18, 1976
Page 19087
Mr. ROTH. No, as one who was involved in the formation of the Budget Committee, frankly, I had urged that we go further than we did in restricting Federal spending. But it was my understanding, and is still my understanding, that the only controlling target is the $15.3 billion figure. The mix is the responsibility of the Finance Committee.
Mr. LONG. That is what I thought I was doing.
Mr. ROTH. We make our recommendations. If the Senate does not like it then it has the opportunity of amending it on the floor, and that is what I think the chairman is contending.
Mr. LONG. That is what this Senator thought, that is what I thought I was voting for. I voted for it. I did not have a chance to read all the fine print in the Budget Committee's report or to pick the mind of Mr. MUSKIE, nor to pick the mind of Mr. HOLLINGS nor to know what somebody else had in his mind, but I can read the language of what I was voting on, and that to me meant just what the legislative history of that budget law said. It said that you assign us a total and we expect to live within it.
Frankly, may I say to the Senator, so far as I am concerned, I wish the Senator could make a point of order; I wish he could uphold these budget processes. I would sure make that point of order and knock that Muskie amendment out right here and now. Mr. MUSKIE could not bust the budget with my help. I would make him do his duty under the law. He is asking us now to vote to go beyond the $15.3 billion, and he will not do it with my vote.
Now, may I say to the Senator from Delaware, his amendment, while I have got some doubts that this is the ideal way to proceed, the Senator's amendment, if it was agreed to, will save the budget process.
It will uphold fiscal responsibility; it will make Mr. MUSKIE do what Mr. MUSKIE is supposed to be doing, protect the budget, protect the fiscal integrity of this Government. If we cannot do it that way, we will find some other way, but if the Budget Committee and its chairman will not protect the fiscal solvency of this Government then the old Finance Committee, which has done it year in and year out, before we ever heard of the Budget Committee, will save the country. [Laughter.]
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appreciate the respect with which the Senator from Louisiana refers to "Mr. Muskies," so I will refer to him as Mr. LONG. But I ask the Senator to yield for a purpose. Has the Senator submitted his amendment? Has it been called up?
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is it pending?
Mr. ROTH. It is pending, that is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. In due course I will raise a point of order with respect to it, and I will be glad to explain it before I raise it. I simply did not want to catch the Senator by surprise. I was not sure that it had been submitted and that it was the pending business. If the Senator would like me to raise a point of order now in order to save time, by letting the point of order be resolved, I would be glad to raise it now. But if the Senator would prefer to continue with an explanation of it, I would be happy to let him continue and then at some point convenient to him raise the point of order.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. ROTH. Is a point of order debatable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order is not debatable.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator like to know my reasons and then he can address himself to the reasons before I raise the point of order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator raised the point of order?
Mr. MUSKIE. No; I have not yet. I have simply, on the Senator's time, alerted him to the fact that I believe that his amendment is subject to a point of order and that I will raise the point of order. I will not spring it by surprise. I will explain my reasons first, at a time convenient to him, before I raise the point of order. He has got a right to hear why I raise it, but, at the same time, if I am right in the point of order, maybe we ought to get it settled and get on to other matters. But out of courtesy to the Senator from Delaware, if he would prefer to proceed before we get into the matter of the point of order, I will raise it and discuss it at his convenience.
Mr. ROTH. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I intend to when the point of order is made, to move that pursuant to section 904(b) of the Budget Act I will move to waive section 306. I ask whether that is debatable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is a debatable motion.
Mr. ROTH. I am ready for the Senator to make his point of order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me, before I make the point, discuss it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let there be order in the Senate. It is difficult to hear. Will everyone in the well please be seated.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would hope, Mr. President, that the Senators would attend. Other Senators may not regard this debate on this issue as serious in connection with the budget process and its integrity as I do. But I regard this amendment of the Senator from Delaware as direct an assault upon it as anything that has occurred.
It pleases the Senator from Louisiana to refer to my amendment as a budget buster. That is the way he debates. I have listened to him for 18 years, and it pleases him always to put his opponent's propositions in the worst possible light in order to ridicule them and to attack them. Well, that is his privilege and I think we all understand how he operates.
But I am going to try to present this in a straightforward and direct way because, if the Roth initiative prevails, and if the Muskie-Bellmon amendment loses, the budget process, in my judgment, would have been enormously weakened. No one else may share that concern but, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I have it, and if I feel it I have got to express it. That is the reason why I am going to raise the point of order with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Delaware.
In order to attract as many Senators as possible, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I would like the first one to go rapidly so that we can get to the live quorum and get Senators in attendance. I also ask unanimous consent that I not lose my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PACKWOOD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be glad to talk at length. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. I ask my colleagues to honor my request. I undertook to accommodate the convenience of the Senator on the other side who had the floor. I have accommodated his convenience. This is a serious matter, whether the Senator from Oregon agrees with me or not, and I would like an opportunity to discuss it and to present the issue to the Senate with as many Senators as possible. The Senator from Oregon used a similar device last night to get maximum attendance. I ask the same courtesy. So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that I might ask for a quorum call without losing my right to the floor; I ask it once more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PACKWOOD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then I will yield the floor until the Senate is ready to get to the question.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Senator retain the floor?
There is a goodly number in attendance; we will get others here, and I think he ought to pursue his point.
Mr. MUSKIE. There seems to be an indisposition to listen on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. For a question.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Senator noted, did he not, that I do not object to having a quorum?
As far as I am concerned, that is perfectly all right with me.
He does have, I think, more Senators than we ordinarily speak to when we explain an amendment. It is not usually my good fortune to have this many here. But if he wants a quorum with more Senators here, I would like to accommodate him.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there might be a quorum call and, at the conclusion, the Senator from Maine be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. 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 :
[Quorum tally omitted]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the presence of absent Senators, and on that I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. METCALF (when his name was called) . Present.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota, (Mr. ABOUREZK) , the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) , the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. FORD) , the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) are absent because of illness.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON), the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. CASE), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced yeas 83, nays 1, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So the motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MORGAN). A quorum is present. Under the previous order, the Senator from Maine is recognized. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Lyle Morris, be accorded floor privileges during consideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, before proceeding with my argument on the Roth amendment, I would like at this time to modify my amendment — No. 1887 — to make it a substitute for the language proposed to be stricken by committee amendment No. 2.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not know that I will object, but I would like to see what the language is before I decide.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand I have the right to modify.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified. The modification is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1887, AS MODIFIED BY UP AMENDMENT NO. 82
TITLE I — TAX REFORM
SEC. 101. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX REDUCTIONS.
(a) TAXABLE INCOME CREDIT.
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 42 (relating to taxable income credit) is amended to read as follows:
"(a) GENERAL RULE.
"(1) In the case of an individual, there is allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the greater of—
"(A) 2 percent of so much of the taxpayer's taxable income for the taxable year as does not exceed $9,000, or
"(B) $35 multiplied by each exemption for which the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year under subsection (b) or (e) of section 151.".
(2) NINE-MONTH RULE FOR 1977.— Paragraph (2) of section 42(a) (relating to application of six-month rule) is amended to read as follows:
"(2) NINE-MONTH RULE.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), in the case of taxable years ending after December 31, 1976, and before January 1, 1978, the percentage '1.5 percent' shall be substituted for '2 percent' in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph and the amount '$26.25' shall be substituted for the amount '$35' in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph.".
(3) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(A) Section 56(a) (2) (relating to imposition of minimum tax), as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (iv), by striking out "; and" at the end of clause (v) and inserting in lieu thereof ", and", and by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause:
"(vi) section 42 (relating to taxable income credit) ; and".
(B) Section 56(c) (1) (relating to tax carryovers), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (D), by striking out "exceed" at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting in lieu thereof "and", and by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new subparagraph:
"(F) section 42 (relating to taxable income credit), exceed".
(C) Section 6096(b) (relating to designation of income tax payments to Presidential Election Campaign Fund), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "and 41" and inserting in lieu thereof "41, and 42".
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out the item relating to section 42 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"Sec. 42. Taxable income credit".
(b) STANDARD DEDUCTION.
(1) LOW INCOME ALLOWANCE.—Subsection(c) of section 141 (relating to low income allowance) is amended to read as follows:
"(c) LOW INCOME ALLOWANCE.—The low income allowance is—
"(1) $2,100 in the case of
"(A) a joint return under section 6013, or
"(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
"(2) $1,700 in the case of an individual who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse (as so defined), or
"(3) $1,050 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return.".
(2) PERCENTAGE STANDARD DEDUCTION — Subsection (b) of section 141 (relating to percentage standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
"(b) PERCENTAGE STANDARD DEDUCTION.— The percentage standard deduction is an amount equal to 16 percent of adjusted gross income, but not more than—
"(1) $2,800 in the case of
"(A) a joint return under section 6013, or
"(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)).
"(2) $2,400 in the case of an individual who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse (as so defined), or
"(3) $1,400 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return.".
(3) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
(A) Subsection (a) of section 3402 (relating to income tax collected at source) is amended to read as follows:
"(a) REQUIREMENT OF WITHHOLDING — Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the Secretary. For purposes of applying such tables, the term 'the amount of wages' means the amount by which the wages exceed the number of withholding exemptions claimed, multiplied by the amount of one such exemption as shown in the table in subsection (b) (1).".
(B) Paragraph (6) of section 3402(c) (relating to wage bracket withholding), as such paragraph existed on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "table 7 contained in subsection (a)" and inserting in lieu thereof "the table for an annual payroll period prescribed pursuant to subsection (a)
(C) Subparagraph (B) of section 3402(m) (1) (relating to withholding allowance based on itemized deductions) is amended to read as follows:
"(B) an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 16 percent of his estimated wages, or (ii) $2,800 ($2,400 in the case of an individual who is not married (within the meaning of section 143) and who is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a))) .".
(D) So much of paragraph (1) of section 6012(a) (relating to persons required to make returns of income) as precedes subparagraph (C) thereof is amended to read as follows:
"(1) (A) Every individual having for the taxable year a gross income of $750 or more, except that a return shall not be required of an individual (other than an individual referred to in section 142(b) )—
"(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 143), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a) ), and for the taxable year has a gross income of less than $2,450,
"(ii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has a gross income of less than $2,850, or
"(iii) who is entitled to make a joint return under section 6013 and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is for the taxable year, less than $3,600 but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home. Clause (iii) shall not apply if for the taxable year such spouse makes a separate return or any other taxpayer is entitled to an exemption for such spouse under section 151(e).
"(B) The amount specified in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $750 in the case of an individual entitled to an additional personal exemption under section 151(c) (1), and the amount specified in clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $750 for each additional personal exemption to which the individual or his spouse is entitled under section 151(c);".
(c) EARNED INCOME CREDIT.—Section 209(b) of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 (as in effect on November 30, 1975) is amended by striking out "and before January 1, 1976".
(d) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1975. The amendments made by subsection (b) apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1975. The amendment made by subsection (c) takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(e) Section 3(b) of the Revenue Adjustment Act of 1975 is amended by striking out "December 31, 1976"and inserting in lieu thereof "December 31, 1977".
(f) DISREGARD OF EARNED INCOME CREDIT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.— Any refund of Federal income taxes made to any individual by reason of section 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to earned income credit) shall not be taken into account as income or receipts for purposes of determining the eligibility of such individual or any other individual for benefits or assistance, or the amount or extent of benefits or assistance, under any Federal program or under any State or local program financed in whole or in part with Federal funds.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I guess I have relearned the lesson I have learned many times before, that a live quorum does not necessarily improve the attendance; but anyway, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Louisiana in affording me the opportunity, and I appreciate the presence of those who are here.
The Senator from Delaware had submitted an amendment at the desk, and it was the pending business. After examining it and discussing it with the Parliamentarian, I reached the conclusion that it was subject to a point of order under section 306 of the Budget Act. Rather than make the point of order arbitrarily without notice, I told the Senator from Delaware that I would not make the point of order until I had explained my reasons. I will try to do so now very briefly, if I may first read the language of the Roth amendment:
Congress commits itself, under the Congressional Budget process, that, subject to such adjustments as may be required to reflect changed economic needs or other unforeseen circumstances, any continuation of the credits allowed under Section 42 beyond June 30, 1977, will be accompanied by dollar for dollar reductions in Federal spending during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977.
This, I take it, is intended to offset any tax cuts that would be implemented if the Muskie-Bellmon amendment were adopted by accompanying cuts in spending. Am I correct, may I ask the Senator?
Mr. ROTH. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. After reading I recall that it was the intent of the Budget Act that any changes in budget resolutions shall be accomplished only by subsequent budget resolutions so that those changes are subject to the same kind of review, examination, and scrutiny as all of the proposals that are included in the first concurrent budget resolution.
Section 306 was written with that in mind. Let me read section 306:
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 consideration of which such committee has been discharged or unless it is an amendment to such a bill or resolution.
The whole purpose of that should be eminently clear.
Without this kind of constraint any Senator who wants to report a bill that would breach the budget targets could include in that bill a proposal to amend the budget resolution so that we would be confronted on a daily or weekly basis with proposals to amend the budget resolution by amendments from particular committees or by particular Senators.
If that kind of habit were to develop the budget process would become a farce. Every budget busting bill that came down the pike, once that lesson were learned, once that practice were adopted, would be accompanied by language similar to this which has been proposed by the Senator from Delaware.
If it is the wish of the Senate, if the Muskie-Bellmon amendment were adopted, to request the Budget Committee to consider spending cuts to offset the revenue losses, that of course can be done, and this amendment could be reframed in the form of a resolution and referred to the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on the Budget would then consider it.
As a matter of fact, last year the distinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) introduced a bill to implement the President's proposal that revenue cuts be accompanied by spending cuts. Appropriately, under section 306, it was referred to the Committee on the Budget. Again, Senator STONE introduced a bill last October affecting spending in Congress, and again it was referred to the Committee on the Budget. That is the process.
So clearly, and I understand the Parliamentarian agrees with me, this amendment is subject to the point of order that it has not been referred to the Committee on the Budget, it has not been considered by the Committee on the Budget, and it has not been reported out by the Committee on the Budget as a bill or resolution pursuant to the Budget Act.
I understand from my earlier colloquy that the Senator from Delaware, if I raise the point of order and if the Parliamentarian sustains me, will move to waive section 306. I hope the Senate does not do that. If the Senate were to do that, in the context of this debate over what the budget resolution means, it will have the same precedent setting effect that I raised concern about in these brief remarks. It would have the effect of denigrating the budget process to the point where the temptation would grow for every Senator who wanted to come up with a new spending proposal, to take that route and to use whatever emotion he could generate relative to his spending proposal, to breach the budget on an ad hoc basis. We would have established a new habit comparable to the budgetary anarchy that we knew before the budget process was adopted in the first instance.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield, without losing my right to the floor because I would like to make the point of order, but a limited amount of debate is certainly appropriate.
Mr. BROCK. I shall ask a couple questions. I think I agree with the Senator from Maine, and he knows my own interest in the budget process and the work I put into that bill. But it does beset me with this particular difficulty. The Senator's own amendment would raise expenditures by $1.6 billion without an offset in revenue. So that is a budget busting amendment by its very nature unless there is some further action taken by the Senate.
What the Senator from Delaware has proposed is that in consequence of that action we commit ourselves to a second stage action which is to reduce spending. I understand the Senator's concern and, as I say, I think I may support him. But what troubles me is how then do we create an enforcing mechanism for ourselves to take that second step if the Roth amendment is not in order and if the point of order is not waived? How can we commit ourselves to take that action if this is the proper course we would like to follow?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say, first of all, that the Muskie-Bellmon amendment simply implements the first budget resolution.
Mr. BROCK. But it does so in a fashion which breaks the budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall answer the question.
Mr. BROCK. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. To repass the first concurrent budget resolution today is not a practical approach. We adopted it once. All we have to do to conform it is to implement all of its policy implications.
If the Senate wants to change its policy implications, if it wants to write another game plan, then under the Budget Act, a Senator can introduce a new concurrent resolution that would reflect the game plan of the Finance Committee. It would be referred to the Committee on the Budget. But there is no limit to the number of concurrent resolutions, as the Senator knows, that Congress can consider in any session. But what section 306 is designed to do is prevent the ad hoc amendment of a resolution already adopted. If the Senate as a whole does not like the idea of extending the tax cuts through fiscal year 1977, as was clearly the underlying policy of the first concurrent budget resolution, then amend the budget resolution by the means and procedures outlined in the Budget Act.
That is clearly open.
The other option is this: If the Senator agrees with me that this is the underlying policy of the first concurrent resolution, and I find it difficult to understand how any Senators could believe otherwise, after listening to the debate or who reading in the committee report which explains what the budget resolution underlying policies are, then what I am doing with my amendment is to implement that part of the resolution that covers the extension of the tax cuts. The budget resolution was designed to offset those tax cuts, in part, by tax expenditures of $2 billion. There are options available pending at the desk which would enable the Senate to implement that part of the budget resolution. If after considering all these proposals we are in disagreement as a body with the budget resolution, then we can appropriately take whatever action the Senate wishes to take. The Budget Act does not in any way limit the sovereign prerogatives of the Senate. I am not suggesting that. But what I am saying is that we adopt a policy in the spring; if we want to change it, unless we change it in accordance with the procedures that we have written into the Budget Act, we are undermining that act.
Mr. BROCK. I accept that, but I would like to ask one further question, because I am a little troubled by the prospect.
The Senator has a very attractive amendment, for which everybody would like to vote. It cuts taxes another $1.8 billion, and we want to be able to explain why we are for or against that sort of thing.
If the Senator’s amendment is agreed to and the Senate decides, as the Finance Committee has decided, that we do not want to increase taxes in some other area by $2 billion, what then?
Would the Senator move to recommit, to make the Finance Committee bill conform with the budget resolution, as it does now, but as it would not if his amendment is agreed to? Or what would be his suggested course of action for the Senate?
If the Roth amendment is not going to be allowed to be offered, where do we go? We will bust the budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. The question implies that I would act from my own personal inclinations. That is not the case. I make these observations not as an individual Senator but as chairman of the Budget Committee, with those responsibilities.
Second, if we adopt my amendment, we will be in exactly the same position we were in when we adopted the budget resolution. We committed ourselves in that resolution to tax cuts through fiscal 1977. We committed ourselves to $2 billion in tax expenditures without knowing at that time what their composition would be. So that if we were to adopt my amendment today, we would reaffirm the tax extension policy of the budget resolution. We would be back in the same position with respect to tax expenditures in not yet knowing what their composition would be.
For the benefit of those who do not know what all the proposals for raising revenues by reducing tax expenditures are, we have this document, which was produced with the help of the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service, which I think gives us some inkling as to what tax expenditures are, for those who find it a complete mystery.
In any case, at that point, if I were to take the initiative, I would take it in the light of what I believe to be — given my best sensitivity to what the mood of the Senate is — the desire of the Senate. We might have to go back to the Budget Committee and ask for a new resolution, taking into account the change in the revenue picture. That certainly is open to us under the Budget Act.
Or we might want to take some legislative initiative on the floor. Or it might be the feeling of the Senate that perhaps the Finance Committee could best address itself to the problem at that point. I would not prejudge that. There are at least three major options procedurally that would be available to us at that point.
With respect to the Senator from Louisiana's concern that we proceed in an orderly fashion, I make this point: It is the Senator from Louisiana who established this order the other day, when he asked that we not move to the consideration of any serious amendment until — I think I have his words. He said, "Once that matter has been resolved" — that is, the question of whether or not this bill is in conformity with the budget resolution. He said, "Once that matter has been resolved, then I think we ought to vote on these amendments on their merits."
So a time was set — 3 o'clock the next day — for me to come back and get involved. I rushed back in order to avoid delaying the Senate's consideration of these amendments, because the Senator from Louisiana had raised this as the first question that should be decided. That is why I offered the amendment — because it is the clearest way for me at this point to get the attention of the Senate and to let the Senate decide.
I am not saying that I have any rule in my possession, as chairman of the Budget Committee, to force the Senate to do one thing or another about this amendment. I do not have a point of order available. All I have is whatever powers I have to explain what I think Congress has done budgetwise up to this point, so that the Senate can take it into account when it makes decisions on this bill. That is the only power I have, and it is pretty limited, compared to the persuasiveness of the Senator from Louisiana.
Procedurally — getting back to the Senator's question — he can go back to the Committee on the Budget and say, "The Senate clearly does not want $2 billion in tax expenditure reduction, and that changes the budget. The Senate clearly does not want to extend the tax cuts — if that is the decision. Now will you take your budget to the drawing board and make whatever changes need to be made in the budget to conform to those two changes in budget policy?"
That is the procedure I would recommend.
Mr. BROCK. I say to the Senator that if he wants to make a point, he has done it well, by presenting us with the easiest of the alternatives which is supportive of his case, and that is to cut taxes without worrying about where we are going to get the money.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have presented Congress case. This budget was adopted by the majority of the 535 Members of Congress. I am presenting their case.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, who has been seeking recognition.
Mr. RIBICOFF. To continue what the Senator from Tennessee brought out, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from Maine all were on the Government Operations Committee that first wrote the Budget Act.
Mr. BROCK. That is correct.
Mr. RIBICOFF. As I listened to the distinguished Senator from Maine, I think he still labors under the illusion that the budget operation allows him to state a philosophy which has the nature of actual law.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not believe I said that.
Mr. RIBICOFF. He talked about the policy in the Budget Act. When the Government Operations Committee first reported its bill, there was a provision in section 301(a) (4) which gave them the right to set out tax expenditures. But when we were required to send this measure to the Committee on Rules and Administration, that committee deleted from the bill which finally became law the authority and the power of the Budget Committee to list tax expenditures. We did adopt a resolution, and the only thing the resolution provided was that the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is $15.3 billion.
The policy or the philosophy of the Budget Committee has no bearing and no binding effect upon this body or any other body. The Finance Committee has just as much right to state its philosophy, so long as it stays within the $15.3 billion. Then it is up to this body to decide which philosophy it will accept — and it is deciding it by vote after vote on amendments being presented.
When the distinguished Senator from Maine comes in and adds another $1.7 billion, he really is going beyond the resolution that this entire body adopted.
Therefore, the point that is made by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is absolutely correct, and the Senator from Delaware is absolutely correct. If the Senator from Maine feels he is right, the thing for him to do is to move to recommit the entire bill and make the decision of what he wants to do. But I do not see how the Senator from Maine can make the argument that he is correct and that it is within his power to offer an amendment to raise expenditures of $1.7 billion but that the Senator from Delaware is wrong in trying to assure that we will have tax cuts, correlatively, of $1.7 billion. The Senator from Maine cannot be right and the Senator from Delaware cannot be wrong. They are either both right or both wrong.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator from Connecticut — assuming I still have the floor — that all of his many arguments we believe to be correct. But as I understand the Senator's reading of legislative history, he is saying that because in the process of writing the bill changes were made, the final form of the bill is meaningless.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Oh, no, I say the final form—
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I have the floor. If I may continue.
I think that addresses itself to my amendment. I think at this moment, we ought to address ourselves to the amendment of the Senator from Delaware because I want to make the point of order. I agreed to let the Senator from Delaware speak on it, and I will, as soon as I yield briefly to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. MONDALE. As I understand the Budget Act, all resolutions and amendments that are budget resolutions must first be referred to the Committee on the Budget. That is the basis of the Senator's point of order.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MONDALE. I am trying to understand the basis of the amendment being offered by the Senator from Maine to extend the temporary individual tax cuts. As I understand the argument of the Senator from Maine, we have before us a budget resolution, a concurrent resolution that has been adopted by Congress, that provides a revenue target which Congress is supposed to reach in the process of reaching an overall budget result that is desirable. That is the $15.3 billion net cut figure that is set forth on that blackboard.
The argument of the Senator from Maine is that the bill of the Senate Committee on Finance, by terminating the individual tax cuts that are now the law on a temporary basis on July 1 of this next fiscal year, has pursued a strategy which is bound to fail, in the sense that almost certainly those temporary cuts are going to be extended, because to do otherwise would cause great injury to Americans of modest income, greater income, and the rest.
Therefore, in order to deal realistically with this pending tax reform bill — to determine whether we are going to meet the revenue targets set forth in the resolution — the Senator recommends that the Senate now determine whether or not we are going to extend those cuts; because if we do, the option is either to increase the deficit beyond that of the concurrent resolution or, while we are acting on this bill, to pick up enough revenue through tax reform to end up at the $15.3 billion target figure set forth in the congressionally adopted concurrent budget resolution. Am I correct in that?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is eminently correct. He has stated it very well.
Mr. MONDALE. Let me ask further. It is not the argument of the Senator from Maine that his colleagues in the Senate are compelled to vote for his amendment under some power that rests in the Budget Committee or flowing from that concurrent resolution that forces them to vote that. Therefore, is not the argument or the controversy putting words in the Senator's mouth that he has not uttered?
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. MONDALE. One final point: The target figure set forth in the first concurrent resolution is not even binding.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. MONDALE. The idea behind the first concurrent resolution is that Congress established targets for revenues, for total spending broken down by functions, which we use as sort of informal guidelines and targets to gage how well we are doing as the process moves along in reaching this congressionally agreed objective. So if the Senator's amendment is adopted and we extend these temporary cuts, which I hope we will and which we are going to do anyway — we might as well deal with reality — then what we all know is that it would then make sense also to deal more seriously with revenue pickups in order to come out with that $15.3 billion figure. But we do not have to.
In other words, the Senate, when it finishes, can do it any way it wishes and a point of order does not lie against the final product of this Finance formula, except that we should be aware of its significance in relation to the concurrent resolution that we have adopted. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. I just add one note: that I think we should regard those targets as serious, because they do make a whole — that is, they are interrelated and dependent on each other. We ought to regard them as sufficiently serious that we ought to stay with them short of a deliberate, rational discussion and decision; we should not fool ourselves that we are not changing the targets, we should not fool ourselves that the consequences are not going to flow.
Mr. MONDALE. Once again, the argument of the Senator from Maine is based on what, in his judgment, is wise policy that he urges upon his colleagues, and not on some inherent authority in the Budget Committee to force us to do something differently than what we would otherwise do.
I think, with that understanding, that no one is in disagreement around here that I can see.
Mr. BROCK. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I promised to yield to the Senator from Delaware.
I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. BROCK. I think the Senator from Minnesota has raised a new issue. That is the fact that I thought we were debating the budget resolution. I thought that was the whole argument that the Senator from Maine is making.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am.
Mr. BROCK. If we are not, let us get clear what we are talking about. Are we talking about a tax cut or talking about the budget resolution and the authority of the Committee on the Budget to tell the Committee on Finance what it wants to do? The Senator from Minnesota says it was not the latter.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suppose we all listen. to that which we want to hear. Let me state it my way. As far as I am concerned, we are not debating the authority of the Committee on the Budget. The Budget Committee has no authority with respect to this debate except—
Mr. BROCK. Are we debating it at all?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish?
Mr. BROCK. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Budget Committee has no authority to force anybody on this floor to do one thing or another with respect to my amendment or this bill. But the Budget Committee does have a responsibility. It has a responsibility to remind the Senate of what the Senate and Congress have already done in the budget resolution and the consequences for that resolution if something different is done today. That is our responsibility. I refuse to throw that responsibility away.
Mr. BROCK. I am not asking the Senator to do that.
Mr. MUSKIE. So it is a debate over the budget policy, but it is not a debate over budget authority, because we have no authority.
Mr. BROCK. I shall use the Senator's words, then, "budget responsibility." I just want to walk through a little bit of history with the Senator for 1 minute, because he and I worked diligently on this one bill together.
Mr. MUSKIE. I sometimes wish the Senator were chairman instead of I.
Mr. BROCK. So do I.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is so easy when you are not chairman.
Mr. BROCK. One of these days, the Lord willing, that may happen, but not for a while.
The Senator from Delaware made the point in the Committee on Government Operations that the first concurrent resolution should be firm. The Senator from Maine and I disagreed with him. We said they should be targets, because they will not work if they are firm. If we do line item, functional categories, firmly, without being able to change them, the Congress would break down, the budget process would break down and it would fail.
The Senator remembers the argument as well as I do. We fought that battle.
Now, it seems that we have reversed sides. The Senator from Delaware is saying, let us keep this thing on a target basis. The Senator from Maine, at least by implication if not directly — but I sure get the implication — is saying, even though the budget resolution said $15.3 billion, we have to go to the component parts of the $15.3 billion and adhere to every jot and tittle. That is not what the law said when it was written and the Senator knows that as well as I do.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is stating a position I have not stated. I am sure the Senator would not tell me now that at that distant point, he believed the first target should be meaningless.
Mr. BROCK. I do not. I think it is very firm.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is all I am saying, that the targets are not meaningless, that if it is unpleasant for me to spell out the consequences for those targets, if that is too much firmness, if that converts me to an inconsistent position, then I apologize. I do not think it does. All I am saying is that those targets are firm enough so that when we are breaching them, we ought to know that we are breaching them. When we are departing from the underlying policy, we ought to know that we are doing it, and we ought to take that decision consciously. If we enact the tax cuts of the Muskie-Bellmon amendment which are assumed by the first budget resolution — if we enact them and do nothing more, then, of course, we all ought to understand that we increase the deficit by $1.8 billion.
On the other hand, if we adopt the Finance Committee package as a whole, without change, many of us believe — and, I suspect, the majority, believe — that down the road we will extend those tax cuts to fiscal year 1977. Then we ought to understand that the strong implication, at least in my judgment — and every Senator can disagree — of the Finance Committee's package is that we will increase the deficit by $1 billion at some point next year. If that happens, we will have lost the opportunity of offsetting that loss in revenues in the 1977 fiscal year by amendments to the Revenue Code. We will then have to either raise the deficit or cut some kind of spending program.
Now, those are the consequences of these alternative courses of action. As long as the Senate understands that, and decides to vote against the Muskie-Bellmon amendment, it is my job as Budget Committee chairman to accept that decision and to try to live with it. But it is my job to spell out what I understand to be the consequences in advance of that decision.
There are those around here who say I ought not to be saying such things because we never said them before. But we did say them before. We said them in the first concurrent budget resolutions.
Mr. BROCK. One of the reasons I am delighted the Senator was named chairman of the committee was because I knew he would fight for that committee, and I believe in him and I am appreciative of his efforts.
I do think in this particular case he must give us credit for believing that we are in compliance with the budget resolution. We think we are, we honestly believe we are and, as far as I am concerned, the debate is over whether or not, in prospect, we might break the budget later on. I do not think that is possible under the law because I think we will be bound by the second concurrent resolution. I think it would be very tough to break it in June of next year or whether we break it now. I would rather stay with the Finance Committee, and I would rather for us to maintain our position that we are in compliance with the figure we were given in the budget resolution, which was $15.3 billion. It is there in the bill, and we have it and are in compliance with it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sure the mistakes of my colleagues are always honest mistakes.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. MONDALE. To respond to the Senator, Senator BROCK I understand the Senator from Maine is not arguing that the Senate Finance bill is not in compliance with the resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. With the revenue number.
Mr. MONDALE. What the Senator is arguing is that it is inevitable that we will extend those temporary tax cuts, and if you assume that is correct — and I think everyone does — and you crank that into the figure, although there is technical compliance, it is almost certain that we will either have to increase revenues or increase the deficit as the result of that event. That is what I understand the argument from the Senator from Maine to be.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, there is another addition to that, and that is that the first concurrent resolution assumed an economic policy which said—
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEAHY). May we have order so that the Senator from Maine can be heard?
Mr. MUSKIE. The first concurrent resolution assumed an economic policy which said that the economy needs that extension.
Mr. MONDALE. The second argument is that it would be a very unwise and cruel economic policy not to extend those temporary cuts, because this would take between $180 and more out of the pockets of most families in America next July, and it would fuel inflation for those families in terms of increased taxes, which add to the cost of living.
It would increase unemployment. And I cannot believe for a moment that this Senate is going to let those temporary cuts expire, nor do I believe does the Senate Finance Committee believe they are going to expire because in their report they say in effect "We will review this at the right time."
So does it not make sense to decide whether we intend to extend those temporary cuts, and then having made that decision — and I hope it will be favorable — proceed to mark up the rest of the bill to see if we cannot reach the revenue targets nevertheless? Is that not the way to proceed?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. Then we will see where we are.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for just one question?
Mr. MONDALE. Can I just finish?
My friend from Tennessee said why pass new tax cuts. That is not a new tax cut. It is in the law now. It is significant that in the Senate Finance bill the only thing that was terminated that was in the temporary set of laws were those tax cuts extended to individuals. We did not terminate the investment tax credit; we did not terminate the corporate rate cut; we did not terminate, to my knowledge, any of the taxes that affect business.
The only thing we terminated under this law was tax relief for average Americans. And I think that is bad social policy; I think it is bad tax policy. I think it is bad economic policy. And I do not think it is going to happen.
So there is no argument here about the Senate Finance Committee violating the Budget Act. The argument is that how we did it was inadvisable and we should change it here, and that is what the Senate is for.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming for one question, and then I yield to the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from New Mexico in that order.
Mr. HANSEN. I just ask one question. I was intrigued by what I think the Senator from Minnesota said. He said that if we did not extend the tax cut, those persons who would have benefitted from it would be subject to higher inflation. I ask the Senator if this is the substance of his statement.
Mr. MONDALE. That is exactly what I said because the cost of living would go up by the increased taxes.
Mr. HANSEN. Without trying to engage in semantics, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee if one of these major methods of attacking inflation is to assure that the amount of taxes that this Government collects come nearer in balance with what the Government spends.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is one of the reasons we advocated $2 billion in tax expenditures.
Mr. HANSEN. Then my second question is, does he agree with the Senator from Minnesota that we will come a little closer to achieving that budget balance, if we adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware reducing Federal spending in an amount equal to the cost of the additional 3-month tax cut extension proposal offered by the Senator from Maine. Will reduction in Federal spending not tend to dampen inflation?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it is your choice. If you think $2 billion spent by the average taxpayer is more inflationary that $2 billion by those who enjoy these tax preferences, that is a judgment you make. I think that the people the Senator from Minnesota is talking about are the people who are having difficulty in meeting the cost of the day-to-day necessities of life.
I do not believe giving people enough to eat ought to be regarded as inflationary, or enabling them to pay for their bare necessities in energy is inflationary. As a matter of fact, people in the higher income brackets are more likely to spend money in ways that are inflationary.
But the third point that you want to consider is whether or not in the current state of the economy it is Federal budgetary policy that is exerting inflationary pressures. In the first quarter of this year the inflation rate, that President Ford takes great satisfaction out of, was 3.5 percent, notwithstanding the fact that last year we were told that congressional budget policy was going to produce dangerous inflationary pressures. Well, that did not materialize because the economy was not working at full steam.
Now, as the economy rises and as it approaches full employment, then excessive government spending indeed could be inflationary. The economy could require the use of tax policy as a dampener. So the Senator is right in the right kind of circumstances. But at the moment the choice is not really, you know, tax cuts or no tax cuts, as I understand the differences between the two sides in this debate. The difference is tax cuts for whom?
I prefer from the point of view of the economy, as well as of equity, that the tax cuts should go to the consumer and to those of the lower income groups. Others think that the tax cuts ought to go and continue to go to those who are enjoying tax privileges at the present time.
Mr. HANSEN. I say to my good friend from Maine, I do appreciate his response to the question. In responding, it seems to me he tried to argue his case, which he does very well.
Mr. MUSKIE. A typical Senate habit.
Mr. HANSEN. Let us not get into that argument because I think it has been pretty well explained to the satisfaction of people who are objective.
But I would just say, he does answer my question when he says, as I understood him to say, that I was right about the inflationary matter.
I do not think it is fair to say that if we are talking solely about a balanced budget that we can say that if we put money into certain individuals hands it is not inflationary, but to place the same amount of money into the hands of other individuals it is inflationary.
This is a complicated bill with 1,536 pages.
I do not suspect my good friend from Maine would contend that he is intimately familiar with every part of it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not sure that anybody in this Chamber would, with one possible exception.
Mr. HANSEN. It seems now we are trying to open up on the floor rewriting of the bill.
I thank my friend from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say, incidentally, that to the individual taxpayer who is struggling to get along, an addition of $180 to his tax burden next year, I think would be regarded by him as inflationary.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Arkansas asked me to yield, and then I will yield to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. I wish to make two or three observations. I think most of the people in the Chambers are the faces I have seen here since this bill was laid before the Senate Wednesday afternoon. They have heard all the arguments pro and con.
I think the Senator from Minnesota yesterday afternoon and again this morning has very clearly stated what the issues are.
I do not believe there is a soul on this floor that does not know precisely what we are talking about.
I have listened with great interest to the vignettes of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I have added a lot of stories from my special reference file that I can use on the banquet circuit and I might add one for the Senator's benefit.
At one time, Maury Maverick, who was a maverick Congressman from Texas, came up to the southwestern part of my State. We are the Arkansas razorbacks. The razorback hog is a pretty ugly critter except to the people who are fanciers of it.
But in any event, Maury stopped at a farmer's house. He had a pen full of razorback hogs. He asked the farmer, "What are those creatures?" The old farmer said, "Those are razorback hogs." Maury said, "How long does it take to get them up to that size?" The old farmer said, "About 3 years." Maury said,"That's an awful long time, isn't it?" And the old farmer said, "I don't know. What's time to a hog?"
We have spent since Wednesday afternoon here in a confrontation between the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee. We are now in the position, apparently, of making a point of order, which I think is a legitimate point of order, against the Senator from Delaware's amendment.
We ought to confront, then, the Senator from Maine's amendment, which simply states that we can face up to raising $1.8 billion now or we can do it next year.
I do not think there are 10 people in this Chamber who are prepared to say right now that they are not going to vote to extend those tax cuts to the people who, I feel, as does the Senator from Minnesota, need it the most.
I am not sure I am going to support the Senator from Maine's amendment, but I can assure that whether I do today or not, I intend to support it when the time comes next July 1.
The question is, do we want to face up to it now or next year? Would we rather wait until next year to figure out where we are going to get the extra $2 billion or face up to it now?
The point I am trying to make is, we will be here until Christmas at the rate we are going.
The issue is very clearly established. I do not think anybody here does not know what the issue is.
I regret that when the Senator from Maine called for the quorum call this morning, more Senators did not stay. Some maybe do not really understand what has been said here in the last 2 or 3 days, but I think most of us do and that we ought to get on with it.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I might yield to my ranking Member from Washington, and then to Senator ROTH.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I want the RECORD to be clear. I hope the Senator from Maine will help me.
The Senator mentioned that we might have to do something about cutting spending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Washington use his microphone.
Mr. MUSKIE. What I said, may I say to the Senator, that in my judgment if the Finance Committee bill is passed as it is, that it is inevitable that the tax cuts which were terminated as of July 1, at some point will be extended for another 3 months.
If that happens, we would then be $1 billion short of the revenues we based the budget on, and there are only three ways to meet that problem at that point.
One, enact tax expenditure reforms; two, raise the deficit; or three, to cut spending elsewhere.
I mentioned that extended social programs are one.
Of all the areas, I do not put it as a target.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I hope not.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not my target.
All I was saying, may I say to the Senator, is that one of the consequences of reducing revenue may be that we have to cut spending. That was my only point and is a very simple one.
I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to point out what I am trying to accomplish here and emphasize that what I am doing is no different from what this Senate did last Christmas when we extended the tax cut.
I want to go along with the proposal of the Senator from Maine to extend the tax cut, but I am proposing an alternative way of justifying that financially. That is through reduced spending. As I said, there is precedent for this, because we had almost the identical amendment up last Christmas, which was adopted by the Congress, and no point of order was raised at that time.
Just as background, I would like to point one thing out to the Senators. When I initially raised this amendment with the Parliamentarian, I was told that it was in order and not subject to a parliamentary point of order.
Subsequently, they reversed themselves. That is the reason we find ourselves in the present position. Again, I want to state that it is absolutely no different from what we did just before Christmas, and no one from the Budget Committee or anywhere else made a parliamentary point of order.
I believe the important thing is to look at the letter that the distinguished chairman from the Budget Committee sent around this morning. He said in his letter:
It is easy to cut taxes, and I want to make it clear that if this amendment is adopted we will have to find additional revenues elsewhere if we are to meet our revenue target.
All I am suggesting is that there is another alternative than increasing Federal tax revenue, and that is to reduce Federal spending.
The Senator from Tennessee pointed out earlier that during the drafting of the legislation that established the Budget Committee, I wanted to take a much stronger position with the first Senate concurrent resolution on the budget. I proposed at that time that if Senators wanted to increase spending in some area or wanted to cut taxes, they would have to offer an offsetting proposal. In other words, if one wanted to extend a tax cut, as the Senator from Maine is doing here, he would have to justify that either by proposing a tax increase somewhere else or, in the alternative, a cut in Federal spending.
Mr. President, I find it most regrettable that the Senate should be in a position that it could not support a tax cut and be able to raise a question about Federal spending. Yet that is what is being argued here. I believe it has to be admitted that the amendment of the Senator from Maine is an amendment in violation of the budget targets, and that I should have the right to offer an amendment to offset the tax cuts with spending cuts. That is all that my amendment does. It is basically the same amendment we passed 6 months ago. It seems to me that we are seriously hamstringing this Senate and the Congress if we have to buy the proposal of the Senator from Maine that in order to give an additional tax cut we cannot make that fiscally sound by proposing a spending cut.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I said I would yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator, but I will get the floor on my own shortly.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. The Senator stated that the Finance Committee bill would cause a decrease of $180 to the average family. That is not the way the technicians on the joint committee staff compute it. The way they compute it is that the Senator's amendment would result in a reduction of $36 in taxes that the average family would pay. Is the Senator aware of that?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sorry, I cannot hear the Senator.
Mr. LONG. My understanding is that the amendment the Senator is proposing compared to the committee bill would result in a tax reduction of $36 to the average family rather than $180, as the Senator said in his Dear Colleague letter. Is the Senator aware of that?
Mr. MUSKIE. $180 is on an annual basis.
Mr. LONG. The Senator's amendment only continues the $35 per person tax credit for 3 more months. That is all it does. That is the only difference between the Senator's amendment and the committee's amendment. It is that the $35 per head tax credit would extend for 3 more months. Is the Senator aware of that?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. That is what is called for.
Mr. LONG. If that is all the Senator is going to do, compared to what the committee amendment would do, which extends it for 12 months, it is only a difference of $36 per family. Is the Senator aware of that? That is, rather than $180 as stated in the "Dear Colleague" letter.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. But the $180 is an annual rate.
Mr. LONG. The point is the Senator is not extending it, except for 3 months, beyond what the Senate committee bill would do anyway. The Senator cannot count the annual tax cut if all he is doing is extending it for 3 months. On a 3-month basis, it is not a $180 saving. It is a saving of $36. Is the Senator aware of that?
Mr. MUSKIE. There are two points, really. It is difficult to refer to both of them with precision in a statement of this kind. One, the withholding rate continues for the 3 months at the $180 annual withholding rate. The withholding rate is geared to the annual impact of the tax. The letter says $180 per year. So 3 months is not a year. I would hope the Members would have made that arithmetic. Whether or not the tax cut is extended beyond fiscal year 1977, of course, is a decision that is yet to be made. It is not the intent of the letter to mislead.
Mr. LONG. Here is the calculation of the Joint Committee: Assuming that the amendment of the Senator, insofar as it differs with the committee amendment, were to apply for a full year, the difference would not be $180; it would be $144.
Further—
Mr. MUSKIE. What is 2 percent of $9,000?
Mr. LONG. Two percent of $9,000 is $180, but that is not the average.
Mr. MUSKIE. They can take the higher one; can they not?
Mr. LONG. Not everybody has $9,000of taxable income, so the taxable income is below $9,000. There are people who have taxable income below $9,000. So $9,000 is not the average.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that. I gather that below $9,000 it depends upon the number of children.
Mr. LONG. Yes, of course. If you average the whole thing out
Mr. MUSKIE. It varies across the line.
Mr. LONG. Exactly. Therefore, the overall average works out to $144, not $180. That is the first error. Now, the second error
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, may I say to the Senator, the importance of the $180 is that it reflects a percentage of income. If you are going to use an average of $144 as the tax credit, what is the average percent of income that that represents? I am looking at that 2 percent figure as a benefit, as well as the actual dollars. Obviously $144 could be more than 2 percent.
Mr. LONG. Small taxpayers would get more than 2 percent. They might get more. They might get $35 instead of the 2 percent.
But if you look at the average, you come up with $144. That is your first error.
Your second is that you are not extending this thing for 1 year; you are only extending it for 3 months, and at that point, even your amendment terminates it.
In other words, in October of next year the Senator's amendment would terminate the $35 a head tax credit. So if you recognize the second error, which is that the amendment deals with only one quarter instead of dealing with four quarters, that, then, gets you down to $36.
I think the record should reflect that, and I would hope that the Senator's "Dear Colleague" letter would be amended to indicate that he is talking about not $180 a family, but $36 a family.
It might also be well to reflect that what we do here is also subject to an amendment to say that the low-income allowance would be increased; and by doing that, this amendment by the committee would prevent anyone from being any worse off if he was in the low-income brackets.
So the calculations the Senator has made are partly in error, when he seeks to point up the difference between the two bills. It seems to me that that should be made clear.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I make another point?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Incidentally, I have the floor.
Mr. LONG. Yes, you do. Of course you do.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do this not to cut the Senator off, because I will be glad to have him come back, but I have two colleagues on the other side who wanted to speak, and I think they are upset because I have concentrated on yielding on this side. They are members of the committee. Could we return to this colloquy after I yield to them?
Mr. LONG. Surely. Would the Senator like to respond to what I have just said, or do that later?
Mr. MUSKIE. First a point about this letter. The Senator talks about the tax increase for most families. That does not include the impact of it on single individuals. I could not, in a single page letter, cover all the varieties of situations that taxpayers find themselves in.
This was intended to be an estimate for families, that this is what it would mean on an annual basis, that is all.
Even as to those, I would grant there would be some variations. I do not have a computer brain and I cannot cover them all. But all that was intended here was to suggest the magnitude of the increase for poor families.
Mr. LONG. Well, the point is that the magnitude should be $36, not $180.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right; the colloquy has made that clear. I would assume most Senators could divide a year by four, but that might not be the case.
Mr. LONG. And also reduce $180 to $144; that would help, too.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suspect the $144 includes single individuals.
Mr. LONG. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Which the Senator refers to as families. I do not think I would accept $144 as an average for families.
Mr. President, I yield in turn to the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Idaho, and I apologize to them both for not getting to them earlier. I am truly sorry.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I do not know exactly how to approach the question of responding to the various points made during the course of the last hour and a half, because I think there are some important budget issues involved in this colloquy, and I hope the Senate does not lose sight of the budget issues as we try to resolve questions of substance within the budget.
I understood the Senator from Minnesota to say no one argues that the Finance Committee has come within the targets.
Well, I think there is an argument. That is one place where I perhaps differ with my distinguished chairman, the Senator from Maine. I do not believe that the first concurrent resolution mandates that we extend the tax cut for an entire year. I think that was an assumption. I think the conference report, when filed, as well as the committee report, when it was filed, indicated that that was one of the assumptions the Budget Committee was making. But whether or not it is extended is not mandated, any more than any of the other assumptions on the appropriations side.
It can be argued that it should be, and it should be argued if that is the position of individual Senators. I will not take that position personally, because I think if the recovery comes along by July 1 of next year, we may find that the best antirecession tool to meet the problems of recession and at the same time not exacerbate the problems of inflation may well be behind the package the Finance Committee has come out with — the ending of the personal income tax reduction on July 1, and shifting instead to those forms of tax policies which stimulate capital formation. I submit we may be to that point where we ought to be doing it now. So I cannot argue against doing it next July 1.
But I do believe there is a distinction that ought to be kept in mind between the kind of amendment offered by the Senator from Maine and the kind of amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware, and that is the very heart of why section 306 may apply to the amendment of the Senator from Delaware, as distinguished from the one offered by the Senator from Maine.
I think the Senator from Tennessee raised a question as to whether there was a distinction that could be made. I think clearly there is. The amendment of the Senator from Maine deals with what kind of tax measure we will have; will we have a tax revenue measure that deals with this mass of tax exemptions, tax rates, and tax expenditures that is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, that is dealt with by the Budget Committee report in a single section?
That should be changed. The Senator from Maine wants to change that mix. He wants to substitute one kind of tax package for another kind of tax package.
I would say to my friend the Senator from Arkansas that today is the day to face the question of whether or not we are going to extend for a full year. We should not wait until next July to make that decision, because we are involved in making a fiscal policy for the entire fiscal year of 1977, not just for part of it.
But I also want to say that this section 306 provision that makes it possible to raise a point of order is a limited restriction under the Budget Act. It does not apply to every action that might vary some of the numbers from the budget resolution, but only to those that will force the Budget Committee to make a change in the numbers. The Senate at any time can entertain and can pass, if it desires, an appropriation measure that increases an appropriation beyond that which was contemplated by the budget resolution. The Senate has the power to do that.
Between the first concurrent resolution and the second concurrent resolution that is not a budgetary policy. After the second concurrent resolution it is a budgetary policy, and is subject to a point of order because it is. The Senator from Delaware, in his amendment, seeks to have us vary the mix between spending and taxes, which crosses functional lines and forces the Budget Committee to make a different allocation of resources in a different way, and this is subject to the point of order in a much different way than the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. ROTH. The Senate did do that last Christmas. There is precedence for it.
Mr. McCLURE. We can do anything we desire if, as a matter of fact, we do not raise a point of order. Just because a point of order was not raised does not mean that it cannot be raised.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wish to make this point.
Mr. McCLURE. Surely.
Mr. MUSKIE. The reason I did not raise the point of order last Christmas is because we were trying to work out a compromise arrangement with Senators on the other side of the aisle, that could accommodate both sides here in the Chamber. It was near the end of the session. That was the reason.
Mr. ROTH. I say what the Senator from Delaware is trying to do now is also work out a compromise.
Mr. MUSKIE. Now we have the scheme and procedure set up in the budget and ought to use those.
Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator from Idaho will yield for a further response, I call this to the Senator's attention.
When we fixed the resolution last year and a dollar-for-dollar cut, we did not have the first concurrent resolution adopted. We have a concurrent resolution adopted by the Senate now that is at issue. The Senator brought that up affecting next year and before this resolution was adopted. That is the proper time to bring it up, and we would have considered it in due course as part of the first concurrent resolution. If that does not apply now after we have adopted it, then every time we have anything we want to mandate on the Budget Committee because we find that we want something done, then between one and two resolutions we will have the Budget Committee having to adjust the figures that they are mandated to make as targets. That is the real issue here today.
We can breach those targets any time we want here in the Chamber. Our job is to come and argue that we should not. But when we mandate the Budget Committee to make an expenditure change, then we throw the whole budget process out of focus. What does Appropriations do? They sit around and wait anxiously to see if some Senator is going to mandate a change in the target so they will have a different ball game when they come to the Chamber. That is the real issue. The target should be argued if we are breaching them. That is the prerogative of the Senator and the committee. But when we dictate that, we change the budget resolution between budget resolution 1 and 2. That is what section 306 was for. And this is dictating that we change the expenditure figure in concurrent budget resolution No. 1. That is the whole issue, not the validity of the Muskie tax or the validity of Senator LONG's joy in the bill.
The point of order is do we want a budget process. The good Senator from Connecticut would argue that, because the targets are changeable, Senator MUSKIE's substantive change in the law should be treated exactly as the mandate that we cut the expenditure level. They are clearly distinguishable.
I direct this to good Senator RIBICOFF. If an appropriations bill comes to this Chamber that breaches a target, there is no point of order that lies because one can argue that we have breached the target but it is only a target. But if a Senator comes to the Chamber with an appropriations bill that breaches the target by a billion dollars, he says:
What I am going to do at the same time is order that the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee raise the revenue to take care of that extra billion.
That is what section 306 is for. It says the Senator cannot bring that up then. The Senator cannot force a change by amendment here of the fixed items in the first concurrent resolution. The Senator can change them in the second one when we are all through.
So pass the appropriations bill that breaches the target, but do not dictate that we must change the figures that were targets so that when the second concurrent resolution comes about there is no reconciliation necessary.
I think there is a glaring difference. Senator ROTH's amendment mandates a change in the first concurrent resolution. Senator MUSKIE's amendment does not mandate any change in it. It says if we pass it and do not do any other changing in the Chamber, when we come to the second concurrent resolution we are probably going to be $1 billion more in deficit. I submit that is going to occur right along. The targets were targets.
But this point of order is a serious one because, any time we want the Budget Committee to change the mandated figures in the course of a year, all we have to do is come in the Chamber with this kind of amendment and say:
Change it right now because we are about to change our modus operandi here.
That is what the Senator when he so admirably led the charge to adopt this new budget reform did not want to happen. Let the evolution change it when we come to the second concurrent resolution but do not say:
Hey, we are changing our mind as to taxes here. So, Budget Committee, you go change the figures in that first budget resolution. We are ordering you, directing you to change it in some way.
I think that is the issue, and it is much bigger than the Muskie buster or the Long joy that is here in the Chamber.
They are irrelevant to the point of order and the attempt to change the first concurrent resolution. It just happens that it comes along now.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. ROTH. I shall make a brief comment because I wish to make certain that the Senate understands my amendment. It does not mandate that the targets be changed. It says that Congress, under the budget process, will take these factors into consideration in the second resolution. It is giving instructions toward the second.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, and I think that is exactly what 306 says. It says:
You are perfectly within your rights to introduce it, but that if a point of order is raised the best that can occur with your proposal is that it be referred to the Budget Committee for consideration.
I think that is what section 306 says.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I hope that we shall be allowed to vote on measures which seek to call our attention to the function of the Budget Committee in setting targets for spending and receipts. We have established a target deficit for this year, and we hope to avoid actions which will increase it.
The Roth amendment simply requires us either to avoid deeper tax cuts than the bill provides, or to cut spending, or to raise revenues somewhere else in the bill.
We have all been hearing a great deal about the harmful effects of Federal deficits on the national economy. In discussing these deficits, we must keep in mind the state of the economy at the time of the deficit.
Both liberal and conservative economists agree that, in times of recession, a deficit is necessary to stimulate the economy. But they also agree that in times of boom a surplus should be run to keep the economy from overheating and developing an inflation.
What is the problem of running a deficit during a business expansion? The problem is simply that deficits must be financed. When the Government issues bonds to acquire funds, one of two things can happen. First, the Federal Reserve Board, which is in charge of the creation of money and credit in the country, may choose to purchase some of these bonds, or may decide to let the public do all the buying. If the public is to do all the buying, then a portion of the public's savings will go into the purchase of Federal bonds. This means that those savings are not available for the purchase of private bonds, or for the banking system to use to lend to private borrowers. Thus, investment is reduced, and the economy's growth rate slows. It is only through the use of savings for the construction of new mines, farms, factories, roads, and so forth, that the economy can grow, and produce more and better paying jobs for an expanding population. Thus, permanent deficits are a tremendous drag on the economy and severely retard the growth of our standard of living.
Alternatively, the Federal Reserve can seek to increase the amount of credit in the system, by purchasing some of the Government bonds. This, too, has its drawbacks. Extra money is created, and private consumption and investment are not automatically reduced. Total spending in the economy is increased, while the total supply of goods and services has not been changed. This necessitates a price rise. This is the root of an inflation.
The only way to avoid this is to match tax cuts with spending cuts.
I am not particularly sanguine about the prospects for such a reasonable approach. In the long set of hearings on S. 50, the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, conducted by the Joint Economic Committee, the majority seemed committed to spending programs at the expense of, or even in addition to, tax cuts, regardless of deficits. S. 50 has been predicted to create an additional $25 billion to $50 billion per year, depending on how manyof its obvious flaws are corrected. Yet there was no mention of how this would be financed. All we heard were muted warnings from Professor Galbraith that we would need wage and price controls if the bill were adopted.
It is time we backed off from this spending approach to all problems.
I believe in a continuation of moderate monetary and fiscal policy to promote low interest rates and a return to a stable expansion of housing, industrial capacity, and employment.
I believe that we need deeper tax cuts to provide renewed incentive for work, for savings, and for investment. The heavy hand of government is destroying incentive and crippling our economic growth.
However, I do not want to substitute one economic crippler for another. We must reduce spending too, to avoid a deeper deficit and more inflation.
The Senator from Delaware is quite right to raise the point that if we support the Budget Committee's version of the tax cut extension, we should be concerned enough about inflation and the first concurrent resolution on the budget to promise either to raise revenues elsewhere in the bill, or, ideally, to restrict spending in some manner.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think we have had enough debate on this. I make my point of order.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield a few minutes more?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. McCLURE. I do not wish to prolong the debate. The Senator from New Mexico indicated he wanted to respond to the Senator from Delaware, and I interrupted my remarks so he might do that.
The anomaly is that I like what Senator ROTH is after, and yet I am going to support the point of order because I like the budget process more. I think it is more important. I think in order to protect the budget process itself we must support the point of order and oppose the motion that will be made by the Senator from Delaware, as much as I like the results of what we would do.
That is the budget reconciling process, both in the first concurrent resolution and in the second concurrent resolution, but not in this matter in between.
Similarly, although I support the Senator from Maine on the point of order, I cannot support him on the amendment because, for much the same reason that I have articulated before, I think the Finance Committee has the right to do what they did in the package, and it was not prohibited by the first concurrent resolution. They acted within the latitude, in my judgment, that was given to them under the Budget Act and the first concurrent resolution. The Senator from Maine is right within his rights and is not subject to a point of order in offering the amendment he has made, although I disagree with the amendment and will oppose the amendment.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank both colleagues.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Brad Furguson be accorded the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do raise the point of order under section 306 of the Budget Act with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, is it in order for me to make a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Budget after the ruling?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. After the ruling on the point of order?
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be in order. The motion to refer is in order any time up to the passage of the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I make the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has been made by the Senator from Maine.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move that H.R. 10612 be referred to the Committee on the Budget with instructions that such committee report the bill back forthwith with an amendment providing that any extension of the general tax credit provided in section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 beyond June 30, 1977, be accompanied by a specific reduction in spending limits provided in the first concurrent budget resolution for the fiscal year 1977 equal to any loss in revenue resulting from such extension.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In response to the Senator's parliamentary inquiry a moment ago, the Chair advised that the motion to refer would be in order after the point of order has been acted upon. It is not in order at this point, until or subsequent to action on the point of order, under the precedents of the Senate.
Mr. ROTH. I will withhold that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the point of order, which the Chair sustains under section 306 of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act, Public Law 93-344.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I now move that H.R.10612 be referred.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is in order to make that motion now.
Mr. ROTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may we hear the motion? I have not heard it.
Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to read it again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will send the motion to the desk, it will be reported from the desk.
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
I move that the bill H.R. 10612 be referred to the Committee on the Budget with instructions that such Committee report the bill back forthwith with an amendment providing that any extension of the general tax credit provided in section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 beyond June 30, 1977, be accompanied by a specific reduction in dollar spending limits provided in the First Concurrent Budget Resolution for the fiscal year 1977 equal to any loss in revenue resulting from such extension.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MAGNUSON. This is as to the motion. The Senator from Delaware has moved to refer this matter to the Budget Committee. Does the Chair rule that the Budget Committee is a legislative committee?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. It is covered under rule XXV of the Senate.
Mr. MAGNUSON. And that, therefore, they can determine legislation on top of what the Finance Committee determines. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senate chooses to refer it for that purpose.
Mr. LONG. They would report the bill only with the amendment suggested by the Senator from Delaware. Because of the point of order, he is moving to refer to the Budget Committee, with instructions to report forthwith, with the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is correct.
Mr. LONG. He is asking that it be reported back with his amendment and nothing else.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. McCLURE. In a motion to recommit, with instructions to report forthwith, that ordinarily, as I understand it, would imply that it is a ministerial act only of the committee to bring it back immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the bill is referred, with these instructions, it would be back before the Senate immediately, with the amendment.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, does not the motion of the Senator from Delaware require the Budget Committee to make certain spending cuts, and does not that require the Budget Committee to hold meetings and to determine where those budget cuts would occur throughout all the functions of the budget? Therefore, is it not true that a motion to recommit and to report back forthwith must be precise on its face and must not require the interposition of the judgment of the committee as to how it is to be carried out?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without going into the specific issue raised by the Senator, the Chair reiterates that if the motion to refer is agreed to by the Senate with the instructions attached, the bill would be back before the Senate immediately, with the amendment attached.
Mr. McCLURE Mr. President, I make the point of order that the motion is out of order. On its face, it requires the Budget Committee to exercise discretion and take actions that are beyond simply reporting it back. The Senate can instruct the committee to take action, but it cannot require the committee to report back forthwith, when it has no opportunity to meet, to hold hearings, to take whatever discretionary action is required. The Senator's motion requires the Budget Committee to spread these cuts throughout the budget. We could not possibly report back forthwith.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would not be within the province of the Chair to determine what the committee should do, based on the instructions.
Mr. McCLURE. Can the Chair instruct the Senator as to where those budget cuts would occur, under the Senator's motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. McCLURE. How can the committee comply with the order of the motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senate, in its wisdom, wants to vote favorably on the motion, then it has the prerogative to do that, and the committee would be so instructed.
Mr. McCLURE. But the committee could not possibly follow the mandate if it were ordered. It is an absolute impossibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I suspect that that is one of the considerations that Senators would have to take into consideration in voting on the motion.
Mr. LONG. As I understand it, the amendment would do for the Budget Committee what the chairman of the Budget Committee would like to do to the Finance Committee, to tell them what to do and to make them do it. That is the clean way to do it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Senator will state it.
Mr. DOMENICI. The nature of the budget resolution is a concurrent resolution adopted by both Houses. My inquiry is whether the Senate can mandate this amendment in the manner suggested by the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate can instruct its Budget Committee by this motion, by majority vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this is the same as the Senator from Delaware's original amendment. It is a fraud on the budget process. He is trying to do by indirection what he could not do directly because it was subject to a point of order. The objective is the same. It could not possibly work.
There is no way for the Budget Committee to exercise any discretion. After it was reported back and included in the bill, since it had already gone to the Budget Committee theoretically under the motion of the Senator, then it would be a useless piece of legislative language in the bill, because the Budget Committee already, by action of the Senator's motion, would have performed the function by its intent to perform under the language of the bill, if it is included in the bill. It is the strangest merry-go-round of an amendment I ever heard of.
I move to lay the Senator's motion on the table.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Maine. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 46, nays 34, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So Mr. MUSKIE's motion to lay on the table was agreed to.