April 18, 1977
Page 11063
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3477
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Finance Committee is scheduled to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning to discuss HR. 3477, the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977. I will suggest to the committee that the title which provides the $50 refund be deleted from the bill. I do not know precisely what parliamentary move will be made to do that. It could be done in any of several ways, for example, by a motion to recommit the bill and report it back forthwith, or simply by a committee amendment to strike title I.
I would assume that this deletion will be agreed to.
We will also hear the administration's position with regard to the remainder of the bill and the committee will have an opportunity to react to the administration position.
I do not think, Mr. President, it would serve any purpose to recommit the bill for consideration.
To do so would involve various delays, both in the committee and when the bill is reported back on the calendar, under the so-called reforms which have been agreed to in this Congress. These delays would cost us a week or 10 days of valuable time in getting ahead to certain matters which the committee would like to consider.
It seems to me that, regardless of what we do about the $50 refund suggested by the President, and it is fairly clear what we are going to do about it, we should pass the tax simplification provisions of the bill. The public expects and has a right to demand tax simplification. The tax laws are far too complicated.
After loyal citizens have worked so hard trying to comply with the provisions of existing law, including the Tax Reform Act of 1976, they have a right to hold us to our commitment to simplify it before 1978. I would assume we will recommend keeping the tax simplification
title and most of the provisions recommended by the committee prior to this time.
The administration will probably recommend deleting some of the amendments providing tax relief and incentives for business in view of the fact that it is recommending elimination of the major part of the bill which would benefit low income and middle income individuals. We will have an opportunity to reconsider their recommendations for business tax relief in our executive session tomorrow. If the committee makes some changes, as I assume it will want to do, I would hope that it will simply decide to modify its committee amendments here on the floor and save the Senate perhaps 1 week of time.
The Budget Committee will undoubtedly want to look at the changed situation. They may want to modify the waiver provision. It may be that we will act on the waiver provision before we act on the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977. If that is the judgment of the leadership, and if the Budget Committee wishes to move with its waiver resolution first, I am sure that the Finance Committee would be happy to wait until the budget waiver provision has been disposed of.
There is one other item in this bill which is very important, and which should become law at some time in the immediate future. This provision is an extension of the tax reductions which we voted last year. These tax cuts amount to more than $14 billion and were among cuts first enacted on the recommendation of President Ford. They have since been continued. We anticipate that they will be continued again. Taxpayers like to know for certain where they stand, however, and it would be well to make the extensions of these tax cuts clear at the earliest opportunity. These extensions would be a part of this Tax Reduction and Simplification Act. This bill, H.R. 3477, is still a good bill even without the $50 refund.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SARBANES). The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the administration's change in policy on the $50 tax rebate, there is an impact on three responsibilities of the Budget Committee: The waiver resolution to which the Senator has referred, the third concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1977, and the first concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1978.
With respect to the latter two, it will be necessary for the Budget Committee to reevaluate its recommended policies and its recommended budgets in the light of the administration's change of position. I will not get into a discussion of those two items at this point.
With respect to the waiver resolution, I suspect that technically the Budget Committee having reported the waiver resolution to the floor, no further action would be required at this time. The Senate can modify any legislation covered by a waiver resolution and amend it. So, technically, perhaps, no action by the Budget Committee is required.
Nevertheless, the waiver resolution was reported on the basis that the third concurrent resolution for 1977 had established the policy assumptions on which we were operating. With those assumptions so drastically changed I would feel better about it if the Budget Committee now were to take another look at the waiver resolution and report its conclusions to the Senate.
I think it ought to be possible to convene a meeting of the Budget Committee for that purpose tomorrow morning so that we could respond to the leadership's desire to move as rapidly as possible. I believe we can do that. There should be very little difficulty. I would like to go through that exercise, however, so that the Budget Committee would have the feeling that it had been consulted.
On the other two, the third concurrent resolution and the first concurrent resolution for 1978, there are more complications that I will not get into at this point.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the time that is wasted in the early part of a session is always something that the Senate winds up wanting to kick itself in the pants for at the end of the year when we find we are still in session in November and then in December, doing things that could have been done at a much earlier date. That is one reason I am going to urge to the Finance Committee that we not seek to recommit the bill, that we ought to simply seek to amend or modify the bill here on the floor as we have a right to do. I would urge that the Budget Committee consider doing likewise so that we can get on with our business.
I believe the decision of the Senate will not be changed in any event. I think I can anticipate that the provisions which have had overwhelming support from Senators and complete acceptance by the public and the media are not going to be the subject of much debate and contest here on the floor.
There will be some controversial votes, as there should be, on a major measure of this sort. But I see no point in dragging things out and delaying decisions that the Senate should make.
I am confident that we can make good progress by getting to this bill as soon as every Senator has a chance to consider the changed situation and the administration has a chance to make its position clear with regard to what remains in the bill. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and his committee and to clearing this bill and making it conform to the budget process, so that we can get on with the business.
I thank the Senator from Maine for his thoughtful consideration of this matter. I look forward to working with him on this matter.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield again?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wish to make it clear, consistent with the Senator's observation, that I disagree and disagree vigorously with the administration's decision to step back on the $50 tax rebate.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there be included at this point in the RECORD a statement which I issued a day or two ago outlining my reasons for that disagreement.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S TAX REBATE
The Administration's policy reversal on the tax rebate is disappointing. It is disappointing both because of its likely economic effects and the manner in which the decision was taken.
The economic effects of this decision are likely to be substantial. It raises the risk of repeating the pattern of 1976, when the economy was strong in the beginning of the year and slowed down sharply at the end. This action is likely to cost about 250,000 jobs by the end of this year, at the same time that the Administration is asking shoe workers, and those in other depressed industries, to bear the heavy cost of unemployment. The Administration's goal of reducing unemployment below 6 percent by the end of 1978 will now be much more difficult to achieve.
These costs might be necessary to bear if the economy was in danger of overheating and additional fiscal restraint was required. But this is not the case, as Chairman Schultze indicated yesterday. The unusual price increases in the last several months have been due to the effects of the winter on food and energy prices, and to inflationary momentum in the economy. They have not been caused by excess demand. There is no serious prospect that the rebate and business tax relief would give rise to such excess demand.
The fundamental economic reasons for the rebate remain valid. The Administration claims, on the basis of strong industrial production and retail sales figures for February and March, that the rebate is now "unnecessary." An accurate characterization of these data, however, would be that the first quarter may turn out to be less bad than we had feared. It now appears that real GNP growth is likely to be around 5 percent, rather than the 3 – 4 percent expected earlier because of the severe weather. Industrial production has rebounded strongly from its winter depression, to be sure, but is still only 2.4 percent above its 1974 peak and 6.5 percent above its level of a year ago. Capacity utilization in manufacturing, at about 81 percent, is still below its average postwar level. These are hardly the marks of an economy that is "overheating." With 7 million Americans out of work, what can it mean to say that two-thirds of the fiscal year 1977 stimulus package is "unnecessary?"
The tax rebate was proposed because final sales in the economy had been growing at a relatively slow pace throughout two years of recovery. Two months of good retail sales do not provide a sound basis for an abrupt reversal of this policy. The gain in retail sales was in fact stronger in the fourth quarter of 1976 than in the most recent quarter, and some of the recent strength of consumer spending may be precisely because the rebate was expected. The protests against the rebate have not come from low and middle income families. Indeed, many consumers are counting on the rebate for relief from heavy fuel bills. How can we expect to maintain consumer confidence if we cannot maintain a steady fiscal policy?
The reversal of policy suggests a kind of "super fine tuning" of the economy which is beyond the capacity of economists. As I stated on the Senate floor last week, "Should we propose stimulus during the slowdown, oppose it when Christmas sales turn up, propose it again when the severe winter descends and oppose it once again when spring raises the temperature and our spirits?"
Both the personal tax rebate and the business tax relief were proposed because investment demand has been unusually weak during the recovery. There still is no evidence that business capital spending will accelerate to boost the recovery. Is stronger investment demand now "unnecessary?"
Another factor in the disappointing recovery has been slow export growth due to the worldwide nature of the recession. The Administration stimulus package originally signaled a determination to provide U.S. economic leadership in world recovery. The stimulus package represented a commitment to vigorous expansion. We urged some reluctant and important trading partners to go and do likewise. What signals is the Administration sending them now? Will the Administration argue at the economic summit in London next month that a more vigorous expansion is suddenly "unnecessary?"
The Administration's action is disappointing, finally, because of the failure to coordinate fiscal policy decisions with the Congress. Reasonable men can certainly differ with respect to the composition of fiscal policy, and such differences were being resolved within the legislative process. But the Administration and Congress appeared to be in agreement on the required direction of policy. The Administration had proposed additional stimulus, and the Congress had revised its fiscal year 1977 budget in a coordinated action. The Administration has now made an abrupt policy reversal without consideration of the Congressional budget process and without adequate consultation with the Congress. It has done so on the most meager and preliminary evidence. It may prove much more difficult to convince consumers or businesses in the future that the Government is committed to a carefully planned, deliberate and steady fiscal policy.
Mr. MUSKIE. Nevertheless, I think there has been sufficient discussion and sufficient committee consideration so that there is no reason to delay the Senate's taking up these issues and voting them up or down. I assure the Senator from Louisiana of my cooperation and I can see no problems at this point with respect to the waiver resolution. If there are any, I ought to be able to identify them some time today so that we can try to anticipate and resolve them, hopefully, tomorrow morning.
Mr. DANFORTH Mr President. will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG In one moment
Mr. President, I think I should also say that we have in the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 a section which would postpone for 1 year the effective date for the sick pay revisions enacted last year. We also have a provision extending forward the date with regard to section 911, involving U.S. citizens who have been working overseas. In another bill, the House did not accept the change in the effective date for section 911. This kept us from passing H.R. 1828, the sick pay bill, with the section 911(a) amendment. I am led to believe that there would be some problem in obtaining an immediate conference with the House on that bill. It appears that the House would like to talk to us, not only about our ideas on section 911, but also about their suggestions, which are part of this Tax Reduction and Simplification Act, with regard to the provisions which we did agree with, those which we modified, and those which we struck from their handiwork. So a broader conference would be in order.
I really see no problem. I think it will just take a few days longer to do it that way than it would to take care of those two items in H.R. 1828 at a separate conference.
I yield to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I simply want to express a bit of concern about handling the tax bill in a very summary fashion. As the chairman of the Committee on Finance knows, I opposed the idea of the $50 rebate quite vigorously, but I wonder if we should not, in either the Committee on Finance or the Committee on the Budget, hear the explanations from some of the administration's economists as to exactly what the status of so-called cyclical unemployment is today. It was my understanding, during the very lengthy testimony by administration spokesmen, that approximately half of the unemployment problem that we have now is structural and approximately half is cyclical. There were a couple of alternative ideas put forward on how to deal with the cyclical aspect of this problem.
One of those alternatives was the rebate. The other alternative was a permanent tax cut. Now I understand that the administration has abandoned the idea of a $50 rebate — and I applaud it for that. However, I am a bit concerned that if all the Senate is doing is simply taking the shortest cut toward doing away with the rebate idea, we lose track of the fact that unemployment today is about 7.3 percent. Unemployment in January when the rebate idea was unveiled, was about 7.3 percent. I would like some consideration, either in the Committee on Finance or perhaps the Budget Committee, or maybe both, as to what the status of the economy is today, what the statue of unemployment is today, and what, if anything, we should be doing about it.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I shall cooperate in trying to obtain for the Senate all the information that the Senator from Missouri would like. It has been my experience, however, that when you are trying to get something done, you may just as well hold a hearing while you have a bill out here on the floor, even while we are debating it — we have done that on occasion — rather than make everything wait while you go through a great number of delays.
We have a rule in our committee: that if someone wants to offer an amendment that brings up a new subject, he is to notify the committee 3 days in advance that this amendment is to be considered so that he can obtain whatever information he wants on that subject and can seek the advice of others. Then, when we get through holding hearings and holding executive sessions, and reporting, by that time, someone might want some time to file minority views, if he finds he is not on the prevailing side. So it is easier to take 10 days to 2 weeks as controversy develops on some of these subjects. Often it does not make any difference as far as the outcome is concerned
I was willing to go along with the $50 refund. I supported it and I did what could to urge others to support it. But one thing I know is, no matter how many economists we bring in here to testify
for a $50 refund at this point, the Senate is not going to pass a $50 refund. It was all we could do to get
enough votes to bring it out here with a majority vote on the committee, even with the administration
doing everything within its power to move that proposal. So the refund is
no longer something that is going to happen.
Others can propose their suggestions, but even if they are proposed with some success or some lack of success in the committee, we still have the problem of making the same decision here on the floor.
Now that we have had this recess, I believe it is in order to get on with the business. We do not have any other major items on the calendar to consider at this moment. We ought to be moving with this revenue bill. There are a lot of things in here that the Senate would like to do.
We might want to do more later on. If that is the case, we could always do that,but there are a lot of good things in this bill that ought to be enacted quite apart from the $50 part.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has expressed the concern that moved me to disagree with the President on abandoning the $50 tax rebate. The third concurrent resolution stands as a reflection of the economic policy which the Budget Committee recommended to the Senate and which the Senate approved earlier this winter.
That will not be changed between now and tomorrow. As I indicated earlier, the Budget Committee undoubtedly will want to reexamine the third concurrent resolution in the light of the President's decision and in the light of the economic assumptions which have become an issue as a result of his decision.
We will do that, I assume, as extensively as the Budget Committee may wish to do so. We will not change the third concurrent resolution until we have undertaken that kind of an examination.
Now, whether or not this tax bill ought to be held up until that reexamination is undertaken is a legitimate question. It can be raised in the course of the debateon this tax bill. But the responsibility of the Budget Committee has to do with the third concurrent budget resolution rather than whether or not this tax bill should be the principal implement of whatever policy the Congress ultimately adopts with respect to the economy.
But I share the Senator's concern, even though we had different views about the tax policy that could best serve that concern. But I assure the Senator that so far as I am concerned the Budget Committee will look at the issues that have now been raised very carefully, not only with respect to the third budget resolution of 1977, but also the first budget resolution for 1978 which has been reported to the floor and which also assumed the enactment of the $50 tax rebate, or some tax policy producing similar budgetary impacts in 1977.
So we have got a bit of work to do and it will involve the kind of reassessment which the Senator has suggested.
Mr. DANFORTH. If I may inquire of the chairman of the Finance Committee, is it his intention to call as witnesses before the Finance Committee tomorrow administration spokesmen, such as Dr. Schultze, who will explain the state of the economy now as they see it and the efficacy or lack of efficacy of tax reduction matters to address any problem we might have with respect to cyclical unemployment?
Mr. LONG. I have called a meeting of the committee in executive session and, as the Senator well knows, we usually have a representative of the Treasury Department present in executive session when we are acting on tax bills. I assume we would have Dr. Woodworth, or the Secretary of the Treasury, to explain the administration's position with regard to this bill.
I certainly would like to have Dr. Schultze present. I would be happy to ask him to be there. But that will be in executive session. As the Senator knows, we will have a record kept. But it is not called as a hearing, although the Senator can, of course, inquire as to what information the administration representatives have to provide on any subject. We will find ways to get the information the Senator wants.
I simply urge that the committee plan to go forward with the measures which the committee has agreed upon, and about which it does not want to change its mind.
I assume the committee would be willing to drop the $50 refund because it was agreed to on a close vote, as several Senators explained, and this is well known to the Senator from Missouri. So I do not have any doubt that will be the majority decision of the committee tomorrow.
With regard to the other things in the bill, the administration might want to say something about that. If that is the case, they can make their position clear, and if they seek hearings or desire it, we can hold them afterwards.
I just do not want to put the bill back in the committee at this point, the reason being that I do not want to fool around with these 3 day delay matters in order to move it. We have had a 3 day delay in the committee, we have had a 3 day delay on the floor, and the bill, including the sick pay provision, has had as much delay as it should have, it seems to me.
Mr. DANFORTH. There are several things I would not want to happen. I would not want undue delay. I would not want to look a gift horse in the mouth with respect to the President's decision now to change his mind on the $50 rebate. And I would not want to see delay or change in the opposition of the Finance Committee with respect to those measures that we did agree on.
However, the whole point of this exercise, as I understand it, has been that it was the administration's position that we had a very slack period in the economy, but the recovery was not strong enough, and that the tax laws should be utilized in this case by the vehicle of the rebate in order to have a stronger recovery.
Is it my understanding that even without committing the entire bill back to the Senate when we consider the $50 rebate and its status, we might consider the status of the economy and what additional or alternative measures to the rebate, if any, can be taken in order to have a more adequate growth in the economy?
Mr. LONG. I will do the best I can to help the Senator obtain all the information he wants consistent with my desire to move ahead with.the Senate's work.
Now, there are other committees that can cooperate in this regard, and I hope they will. But I know on occasion when the Finance Committee is not burdened with trying to get on with the discharge of its obligations to the Senate, we have had too much cooperation, I feel, from other committees holding hearings and making recommendations in areas that are within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
It is not often nowadays that we see a tax bill where the Joint Economic Committee has held hearings on the bill and made their recommendations on it, the Budget Committee has held hearings and considered the matter — and on both sides — and we usually feel we should wait until we see a bill from the Finance Committee.
But that is not by any means the end of the jurisdiction it shares with others. The Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee often holds hearings on the same subject, the general state of the economy, and what should be done about it.
So with all that cooperation, I do not know why we should have this problem about economic information.
I think our committee can help, but the others can be of assistance, also.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it ought to be clear, the Senator from Missouri's inquiry is making it possible to make clear that, with the President's decision on the $50 tax rebate, this tax bill moves along without that provision in it; that so far as the third concurrent resolution is concerned there will be a policy vacuum in the Congress economic program.
There will be several billions that will be uncommitted for any policy upon which Congress will have agreed, because Congress agreed to an economic policy in the third concurrent resolution which assumed the enactment of the $50 tax rebate or something with a similar budget impact.
With those billions of dollars untied from the tax rebate, we will see a vacuum, and it will operate like many other vacuums. It will be filled, or there will be a temptation to fill it. I suspect that there will be all kinds of ideas generated in Congress as to how best to fill it. That is one of the unfortunate consequences in my judgment, of the President's decision.
We have now unleashed those dollars which are within the total numbers of the third concurrent resolution, without having a policy to tie them down. Until we get that policy, which may take some backing and filling in the Senate and in the House, there are going to be all sorts of suggestions for how to use those stimulus dollars that are hanging loose now, ready to be grabbed by somebody — first come, first served, or what have you.
That disturbs me mightily, because we have had in place for 2 years a way of avoiding that kind of disarray; and the President, with his action last week, has created that disarray. How it will come out in the end, I am not sure, and I would not try to assure my good friend from Missouri on that point. But it is an important point, and I do not think we will be able to settle it in connection with this tax bill to the satisfaction of everybody. I do not see any useful purpose to be served by delaying that tax bill unduly, because there are other important things in it; but I think that moving that tax bill does not deprive us of the means of filling that vacuum in an orderly, rational way, and I hope we do. We will try to do it in the Budget Committee.
Mr. DANFORTH. My interest is not in filling a vacuum or spending $11 billion which now becomes available, when we have a deficit many times over $11 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not suggest that as a desirable goal. I am just saying that never in my life have I seen a vacuum that somebody did not try to fill. To ignore that possibility will be very unrealistic.
Mr. DANFORTH. My concern is that in January, when the rebate was proposed, we had unemployment at 7.3 percent. Today we have unemployment at 7.3 percent. I would like at least some analysis, whether it is in the Budget Committee or in the Finance Committee, as to how we can go about trying to get these people back to work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DECONCINI). The 30 minutes for morning business have expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for an additional 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I assure the Senator that we will inquire into that problem in the Budget Committee. It will not necessarily be done in connection with this tax bill, which is the responsibility of the Finance Committee. To the extent that some questions are now raised that we need to deal with in terms of the state of the economy and the unemployment rate, I think the Budget Committee will recognize its responsibility to do the best it can to provide some suggestions.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield, but the Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I think the Senator makes a very important point when he states that there is now several billion dollars unattached floating around. Actually, I believe it is $11 billion plus.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think it will come out to that. I hope to have the details later this afternoon, I say to the Senator from Virginia. It is a lot of money.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It is a vast sum of money, billions of dollars.
A vacuum has been created. What will happen to that, in the fear of the Senator from Virginia, is that that amount will be additional spending, or at least a part of it will be additional spending. I think that will be going in the wrong direction.
The President — I think wisely — has scrapped a part of his economic stimulus program, the part dealing with reduction in taxes. Having done that, he should follow up and do away with the increased spending that he is recommending.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have learned enough about this budget process to know this: If you want to control any part of it, you have to find a way to control all of it. If you want to change policy in midstream and not create the potential for disarray which is now the subject of our colloquy, you have to do it consistent with that process. When you do not, you create the possibility of vacuums of this kind.
The Senator has been around as long as I have, and he knows that one of the strong forces for the creation of the budget process was the tendency of Congress to spend in any direction. If we are returning to that way by failing to follow the process, then we can anticipate some of the consequences which the Senator from Virginia deplores and which I deplore.
I assure the Senator that, so far as I am concerned, until Congress has acted in some way to set a policy that responds to the problem, I will resist, as best I can, any new spending proposals that exceed the assumptions of the third concurrent resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the billions that were assigned to the tax rebate are now unleashed.
I will not consciously acquiesce in any proposals to use that for other purposes until that budget policy has been laid down. I assure the Senator of that.
Nevertheless, I think we have to recognize that if we are under the targets of the third concurrent resolution by billions of dollars and somebody comes along with some big program, which we did not assume and Congress has not approved, and argues that there is money in the budget resolution to pay for it, I cannot use the discipline of a point of order to stop it, because the hole will have been created.
The Senator and I disagree about budget policy from time to time, and I honor him for holding up his end of the argument when that happens. But what I am arguing for here — and this is one of my biggest complaints about the way the President did this — what I am pointing out is that the result is that we are untied from the process which for at least 2 years has been in existence, by way of writing tax policy or budget policy, in accordance with the plan that has been adopted by Congress as a whole. I think the Senator and I are talking about the same thing.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I think the Senator and I are talking about the same thing.
I started my colloquy with the Senator by saying that I think the Senator from Maine raises a very important point, and it is a very important point for the consideration of the Senate.
The Senator from Virginia did not suggest that Congress or the Senate violate in any way the established procedures. There has been created, however, outside of Congress, a condition which Congress is now faced with, a step of which I happen to approve. Nevertheless, it is a condition with which Congress is now faced, and that does open the doors to the possibility at least of a substantial increase in spending, which the Senator from Maine opposes and which the Senator from Virginia opposes.
The only additional comment I should like to make is one that I made a moment ago — namely, that since the new process has been opened up and the whole area must be reexamined by the Budget Committees I should like to see the entire Carter economic stimulus package reexamined.
The President, himself, has advocated the scrapping of the reduction in taxes — namely, the $50 rebate.
I should like to see him advocate now, along with that, a scrapping of the increase in spending which he proposed. and which the Budget Committee recommended. This would be a step toward achieving a balanced budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suggest that the Senator address his recommendations to the President, and perhaps he will be more persuasive than I have been these past few days.
I thank my good friend from Virginia, and I thank the majority leader for his consideration.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) . I appreciate the logic of their suggestions. It has been suggested that the respective committees be permitted to meet and give consideration to the various aspects of the recent events. In light of their suggestion, the leadership will be delighted to forgo further action today on the bill which was expected to be called up.