June 21, 1976
Page 19384
TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10612) to reform the tax laws of the United States.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I know of no reason why anyone would object to the pending amendment; and if there is no objection to it, I hope the amendment can be agreed to by unanimous consent. I have yet to hear of anyone finding any objection whatever to the pending amendment to the Muskie amendment. Not one Senator has indicated that this is not good tax reform and that these sections in the bill which repeal obsolete sections or seldom-used sections in the Tax Code should not be effective.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, to the best of my knowledge, this amendment is a piece of a bill which was reported. It consists of technical, conforming amendments which usually are almost routinely adopted at the end of the consideration of the principal issues of a bill. I have no particular question about it, but I do have a question about its introduction at this point, its introduction as an amendment to my amendment.
I have the vaguest kind of suspicion that its purpose is to overload my amendment. It may be just the first of a series of amendments to try to overload it.
If the Senator would only give us some clue as to what he has in mind with respect to resolving the issues raised by my amendment, when we can expect to continue debate, how long it is likely to continue, when we can expect to have a vote on it, I think he would find me very receptive to the motion of disposing of this, which represents, I suppose, a duplicate cost of printing something to which there would have been no objection in the first place.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I hope the Senator does not deal lightly with the amendment he is holding in his hand, because that amendment contains 200 pages that simplify the Internal Revenue Code, deleting sections which are practically never used or obsolete, and it makes a few changes in some of them to make them more comprehensible and easily understood. We have had all of that before us on at least one or two other occasions. It should have been passed and should have become law a long time ago. It has not been passed. I do not see any reason why it should not be agreed to.
While we are getting around to the point of voting on the amendment by the Senator from Maine, which might take some time, this is one thing we could do in order to make progress. I have yet to hear one person find anything wrong with those 200 pages.
I do not know why the Internal Revenue Code should be cluttered up with a lot of obsolete provisions that are no longer needed. It seems to me that deleting them is something nobody can object to. If we cannot do anything else at this moment, it seems to me that that is one constructive thing we can do — agree to something with regard to which nobody can find any cause to disagree. We cannot tell — it might achieve more than that. Anytime we can agree on something, we have made that much more progress in the right direction. If we agree on this, perhaps we can agree on something else. This is something with which nobody has disagreed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that he, himself, established the first issue. This is not part of the first issue. This is at the end of the bill, and it is more consistent with the battle plan which the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has asked me to consider — that is, to put this at the end of the consideration rather than with his objections to my amendment.
So the clear cut issue is before us. This is intended to bog it down. I do not think anybody has read it, to see whether or not there are objections to it, because normally it is the last routine item of business taken up in connection with a bill. So far as I know, that is all it is. I have not read it.
Mr. LONG. The Senator must remember—
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish?
I am willing to accept the Senator's description of this. But what concerns me is this: Why was it offered here? Why was it put on my amendment? Why the delay in getting to a vote on my amendment? What are the Senator's plans?
Little as I know about parliamentary procedure, I have learned around here not to agree to anything until I know why the initiative was taken. The Senator has been one of my teachers — not that he has made me an expert, as I would classify him, in all these matters. But I am not going to agree to a thing until the distinguished floor manager tells us what his plans are with respect to the issue he has raised with respect to my amendment, without any more debate. We have had 2 days of debate. I am not going to agree to anything until we dispose of that. The Senator, on the first evening of debate, said it was the first order of business, and this is the last order of business in any bill.
It is for that purpose that I am not going to open up to the Senator from Louisiana parliamentary opportunities of which I, in my ignorance, am totally unaware.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LONG. I hope the Senator will withhold his objection long enough for me to clarify matters.
Mr. MUSKIE. I withhold for that purpose.
Mr. LONG. What the Senator has there are not technical and conforming amendments. That is known as a deadwood bill. It is to repeal all the obsolete sections of the Internal Revenue Code that no longer serve any purpose. For years and years, people have been confronted with the spectacle of a lengthy, complicated, difficult code. It is bad enough to have to be confronted by the complexities, much less to be struck with all these sections that really serve no purpose and do not belong in there. This would repeal 200 pages of laws which are not needed at all. If we take out those 200 pages, that is reform — to get many obsolete sections out of the code. That is reform. At least, we will have simplified the law to the extent that we will repeal 200 pages of complicated, incomprehensible sections of the law that are no longer needed. However, if the Senator wants to object, that is his privilege.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that his description of these 229 pages to me brings me to the 1,500-odd pages that he would put back in the Code. I think that we ought to dispose of one thing at a time.
That is my New England upbringing. You take one thing at a time. We have a very plain situation before us. If the Senator is interested in agreeing to a time limitation on the Muskie amendment and a vote, either a motion to table or a vote up and down. I have no objection to the substance of the Senator's amendment from anything I have heard about its contents. But I would like to get the first order of business taken care of before we take care of the last order of business.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's point of view. I take it he objects to voting on the amendment that is pending.
Mr. MUSKIE. At this time, until I get some clue as to where we are going from here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MUSKIE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GARN). Objection is heard.
Mr. LONG. Let me make it clear, Mr. President, that in my judgment, the Muskie amendment pending itself does nothing but confuse the issue. What I wanted to get clear was that any standing committee of the Senate, within its jurisdiction, has not only the right but the duty to recommend to the Senate what the majority of the members of that committee believe to be best, all things considered. That is the duty of a committee, in my judgment, which cannot be denied by someone who might have a difference of opinion with the majority of that committee. Those who might be on some other committee might look at it differently. But unless the Senate has expressly ordered a committee to do a particular thing, or ordered a committee not to do a particular thing, then it seems to this Senator — I am confident I am right about this, and when the Senator comes to understand it, they are going to have to sustain it — that in the absence of an order by the Senate, expressed directly, not by inference or indirectly, that the committee should do something or not do something, then the committee should do what its majority vote would feel to be the best for the Nation and the whole free world, quite independently of whether someone or some other committee might think that that is what this committee should do or not do.
As a matter of fact, as much as I would like sometimes to keep another man's conscience, there is no way I can do that, because I am not that man. The same thing applies the other way around.
Sometimes I wish I could be the able and effective, competent, distinguished Senator from Maine, but I am not. That is just not how the good Lord made me, so I cannot be that great Senator. I just have to be whatever the good Lord happened to have in mind when he put me here. The same thing tends to work the other way around. So, as much as I might want to do what Mr. MUSKIE would do if he had the responsibility thrust upon him that I find mine from time to time, it is not possible for me to do that. All I can do is just do the best I can to reflect what I think is correct when I have the problem thrust upon me, and I suppose the same thing is true with regard to the others.
If the Senator will not accept an amendment that, to me, is something that absolutely cannot be objected to, that nobody could get upset about, if he cannot agree to that, then, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 63
Mr. LONG. Having read the Senator's speeches and having heard them, I send to the desk an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) proposes an imprinted amendment numbered 63.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, line 8, strike out "Nine-month" and insert "Special".
On page 2, beginning with line 11, strike
out through line 18 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR 1977.
"(A) ALTERNATIVE AMOUNTS.—Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) , in the case of taxable years ending after December 31, 1976, and before January 1, 1978—
"(1) the percentage '1 percent' shall be substituted for the percentage '2 percent' in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph, and the amount '$17.50' shall be substituted for the amount '$35.00' in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph, or
"(ii) the percentage '1.5 percent' shall be substituted for the percentage '2 percent' in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph, and the amount '$26.25' shall be substituted for the amount '$35.00' in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph.
"(B) DETERMINATION OF WHICH ALTERNATIVE APPLIES. Clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph applies to such taxable years only if the Secretary determines that the net reduction in fiscal year revenue under this title for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 1977, as a result of the amendments to this title made by the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (other than to this paragraph) do not exceed $15,300,000,000. The Secretary shall make such determination within 30 days after the date of enactment of such Act and immediately inform the Congress of his determination and the methods and data upon which the determination is based.".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, does the Senator have a copy of that amendment?
Mr. LONG. Yes, in just a moment I shall be glad to send it.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I ask the Senator, is this offered to my amendment or—
Mr. LONG. Yes, it is offered to the Senator's amendment.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator has yielded to me. I ask unanimous consent that James King, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate and vote on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, what I propose by this amendment is to take up the Senator from Maine on his proposition. The Senator says that if we vote for his amendment, that will require the Senate to vote for further increases in revenue so as to pay for this; that that will put the Senate under pressure to vote for more tax increases or more reductions of tax expenditures, if you want to put it that way, or closing tax loopholes. If you would prefer to put it in the language that appeals to some, to raise the money to pay for all this.
Now, this amendment would take the Senator up on his proposition. We find the money to pay for this, and, fine, we shall have the additional $1.7 billion of tax cuts. Now, if we cannot find the money to pay for it, we should not have it.
As far as I am concerned, the same thing ought to apply to every provision in the bill that the Committee on Finance has recommended. If we have the money to pay for it, let us pay for it. If we do not have the money to pay for it, let us restructure this bill until we do. We can either do it here on the floor or we can recommit the bill and let a committee do it. In either event, that is how we on the Committee on Finance did business. We started out by saying, all right, we would like to have all these tax cuts; let us see how much money we can raise. After working on this thing for almost 5 weeks, we said, all right, here is how much money we have; let us see how much good we can do with this much money.
We looked at what we had in our bill and we tried to balance it off.
The amendment finally got in and we said about the only way we could see to get all of these good things into this bill that seemed to be in the public interest that we think would promote the interest of the whole free world could be to say that a part of this temporary emergency tax cut for individuals, and only that which applied to people making more than $12,000, would come to an end July 1, 1977. That is more than a year from now. That is the way you could finance it.
We have provisions in here which would help people to insulate their homes, which was not called for by the Budget Committee. We have provisions to help conserve energy, which was not called for by the Budget Committee.
The Budget Committee was urged by business and by the administration and even by the Finance Committee to find some money to help people accumulate some capital to build new plants and provide new opportunities for people to go to work at good jobs, but they could not find anything at all, not 5 cents, to put in there. In fact, the way I read this, when you take another $2 billion away from business — I do not care whether you call it a closing of loopholes or whether you call it a reduction of tax expenditures or whatever, it is still just a tax increase that takes money away from people and they cannot invest and put people to work and use that as equity to borrow more capital to expand with money they do not have. So when you take the money away from them I do not care what you call it, they still have that much less.
So far from finding another $2 billion to help expand job opportunities, the Budget Committee could not find any room at all for 5 cents worth of that in the tax package. We do make some recommendations in that direction. So I would think that we ought to look at the whole package, all the tax cuts, in the context of saying which way would the package do the most good, and I would be willing to live with this amendment with regard to every reduction that the Finance Committee has recommended, and say, "All right now, it has all got to appear within the $15.3 billion." That is the Senator's argument, as I understand it, that if you pass his amendment you are going to have to come within the $15.3 billion, and I would think that if the Senator is sincere — and I am sure he is — he would be compelled in good conscience and consistency to accept this amendment and say, "All right, when you agree to this; that is, you do so only assuming we raise enough money to pay for it," and that is the whole idea of the budget concept.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.