October 5, 1978
Page 33944
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a point of order is to be raised by members of the Budget Committee. It is also my understanding that a unanimous consent request is going to be made by either the Senator from Louisiana or the Senator from Maine.
While we are waiting for the senior Senator from Maine to return, I point out that, in my judgment, this point of order raises a very fundamental issue for the Senate and Congress.
The issue which will be before the Senate is whether or not the Senate has a right to vote on the merits of a multi-year tax cut. I believe that the most effective tax reduction we can adopt would be a phased-in reduction of tax rates over a number of years. The tax cut would insure predictability, provide for orderly planning, and impose needed discipline on the Federal budget.
But the issue which the Senate will be facing is not the merits or demerits of a particular multi-year tax cut. The issue is whether the Senate has a right to vote on the merits of a multi-year tax cut.
I think we have to admit that there is an inconsistency in the budget law itself, but we have to construe it in such a way that it makes good sense for the orderly conduct of business by the Senate.
It seems to me that the legislative history of the Budget Act is very clear that there are valid reasons why Congress could make revenue changes for future years.
For example, the Senate Rules Committee report on the Budget Act, on pages 44 and 45, states:
Again, the need for legislation well in advance of the year in which it takes effect underlies this exception. Changes in the general tax rates, for example, are often graduated over a period. of years in order to give predictability and allow for planning by those affected. (S. Rept. 93—688, pp. 44—45)
It makes no sense to say that the Senate. can pass legislation which would phase in a tax cut for the coming year, not for the second succeeding year, but again could for the third, fourth, and fifth years. I do not believe any author of budget legislation would have argued or so argued at that time.
Mr. President. I see that the senior Senator from Maine is in the Chamber, as well as the senior Senator from Louisiana. I think they want to propound a unanimous consent request, so I yield the floor to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once it has been determined that a quorum is present, the point of order may be made with regard to the pending amendment; that 1 hour be allowed for debate, to be divided equally between the manager of the bill and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. MUSKIE, on an appeal, assuming that, in either event, there will be an appeal to the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the Senator's thought that the point of order be made first and ruled upon, to be followed by debate, or that the debate precede the making of the point of order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The debate would come on the appeal, which means that the point of order would have been ruled on by the Chair, so the debate would be on the appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
Is there objection?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object — and I will not object, I understand that the 1 hour would be on the appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall make the point of order. First I shall make a brief description.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I believe it will be well to have as many Senators as possible in the Chamber.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might suggest the absence of a quorum without it being charged against either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. LONG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be instructed to request the attendance of absent Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. LONG. Yeas and nays, Mr. President.
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 West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. With the addition of Senators voting who did not answer the quorum call, a quorum is now present.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I hope very much Senators will stay around for the next half hour or so and hear the debate, because there is a very important point to be decided by the Senate, and Senators should not vote on this in the dark. So I hope very much they will hear the point of order, hear the ruling, hear the appeal, and hear the arguments, because it is very important to every Senator, and I would hope very much Senators would stay on the floor and hear the debate for the next half hour or so. We have 1 hour for debate.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield..
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to current Nelson amendment to H.R. 13511 to provide for accelerated depreciation for small business: the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. CHAFEE) , the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN) , and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
MATSUNAGA) .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I make the point of order, pursuant to. section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, that the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) involves a decrease in revenues for fiscal year 1980 before the first concurrent resolution on the budget for that year has been agreed to, and is not within the exception provided by section 303(b) (2)of the Budget Act, and has not received a waiver pursuant to section 303(c) of that act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAYH) . The Chair, in responding to the point of order of the Senator from Maine, is glad to respond, after being advised by the Parliamentarian upon just having occupied the chair. The Chair has been advised that the following is the correct interpretation of the point of order raised by the Senator from Maine:
The point of order having been made under section 303(a) of the Budget Act that the pending amendment provides for a decrease in revenues to become effective during a fiscal year before the first concurrent resolution on the budget for such year has been agreed to and is not excepted by section 303(b), which provides that: "Subsection (a) does not apply to any bill or resolution * * * (2) increasing or decreasing revenues which first become effective in a fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the concurrent resolution applies," and that no waiver has been provided under section 303©), the Chair sustains the point of order for the reasons that—
First. The legislative history of section 303, which must be looked at because the section itself is not absolutely clear, states:
Legislation that provides budget authority or changes in revenues to be initially available in fiscal years which are two or more ahead (emphasis supplied) may be taken up before action on the first concurrent resolution for that year.
Second. And the uniform practice of the Senate, based upon the interpretation of the Budget Committee, and acquiesced in by the other standing committees, including the Finance Committee has required waivers of section 303 (a) each time a bill has been reported which first took effect the following fiscal year.
That is the interpretation that has been made for the Chair relative to the point of order made by the Senator from Maine.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is certainly within his rights to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. LONG. Let me make this clear to the Senate: I do not challenge the Parliamentarian's right to so rule. But when I first discussed the matter with the Parliamentarian, I showed him the law, explained to him the problem, and the Parliamentarian advised me that I was right.
Subsequently the Budget Committee talked with him, and they persuaded him that the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) was right.
You can read the law for yourselves, and make your own decision. The Parliamentarian was kind enough to provide me with his opinion in advance, and advised me how he would suggest the Chair rule.
There is no dispute that we can cut taxes for 1981. We are now in fiscal 1979,though we are in calendar year 1978. We can cut taxes in 1981 without needing a budget waiver. 1981; that is a long time from now.
We are not arguing about that. I agree that we can cut taxes in 1981. That does not have anything to do with what we can do in 1980. But the Parliamentarian is relying upon something that says that we can vote to cut taxes in 1981 to say we cannot cut taxes in 1980.
What the Parliamentarian has relied upon is absolutely and totally irrelevant. I am not supporting Mr. ROTH's amendment on the merits, but I am supporting his right to offer an amendment to cut taxes not only in 1981 but in 1980.
Let me read from the same report by the Rules Committee as is quoted by the Parliamentarian. Let me read what they said on the point that is relevant, the right to have a tax cut in the year following the budget year. Here we are in 1978; we are talking about the right to offer an amendment proposing a tax cut is to go into effect in January 1980, 16 months away. The right to do that is clearly provided for in the law. Let us see what the committee report said about it.
I am reading from page 44 of the Senate Report 93-638, the Rules Committee report language dealing with this section. The exception applies to:
Bills or resolutions which increase or decrease revenues effective in a fiscal year following the budget year.
Here we are in calendar year 1978. We are in fiscal year 1979. We are talking about a cut to go into effect in both calendar year and fiscal year 1980, the following year.
Let me read it again.
The exception deals with:
Bills or resolutions which increase or decrease revenues effective in a fiscal year following the budget year. Again, the need for legislation well in advance of the year in which it takes effect under this exception. Changes in the general tax rates, for example, are often graduated over a period of years in order to give predictability and allow for planning by those affected.
That is what is relevant in the committee report, and it expressly gives the Senator from Delaware the right to offer his amendment.
I am not for the Senator's amendment. I will speak against it. I will vote against it. I will urge the Senate to reject it. But not only the Senator from Delaware, but anybody in this body has a right to offer an amendment providing a tax cut or a tax increase in the year following the year to which the budget resolution applies. Otherwise, Senators would not be able to offer a tax cut affecting their people after the end of the budget year without the consent of the Budget Committee. unless it went into effect way up in 1981. That ,is a long time before it could take effect.
Let us read the language of the bill itself. I ask Senators to read it.
First, let us take the general rule:
SEC. 303. (a) IN GENERAL.— It shall not be in order . to consider any bill . . . (or amendment thereto) which provides
* *
(2) an increase or decrease in revenues to become effective during a fiscal year . . . until the first concurrent resolution on the budget for such year has been agreed to...
Under that general rule the Senator from Delaware would be barred from offering his amendment. But then we get to the exceptions. Now let us read the exceptions:
(b) EXCEPTIONS— Subsection (a) does not apply to any bill or resolution
* * *
(2) increasing or decreasing revenues which first become effective in a fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the concurrent resolution applies.
We are not under the first concurrent resolution now; we are under the second concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1979. The Senator is offering an amendment which is within the budget for fiscal year 1979, It provides for a further tax cut in fiscal year 1980, and a further tax cut in fiscal year 1981.
The language in the committee report that says that an amendment can have a further tax cut in 1981 is being relied upon to say it cannot have a tax cut in fiscal year 1980, which the report language does not say at all.
There is express language that says a Senator can offer an amendment with a tax cut in 1980. Read the law.
What was the whole intent of the budget process? It was to say that when the Budget Committee meets in January and they go to work on the budget resolution, you cannot cut the revenue that is available to them for that fiscal year and you cannot increase the spending, because that would mess up the budget process. The Budget Committee would not know how much revenue they had coming in. They have to know how much revenue they can rely upon so that they can make the budget and try to cut the cloth to fit the pattern. That was the purpose of the limitation. It made sense. Nobody on the Finance Committee objected to that part of it. We said:
If we want to cut taxes beyond what the Budget Committee is recommending, we will do it in future years.
If we vote the tax cut proposed by the Roth amendment for 1980, that will not interfere with the Budget Committee. It simply means that when we come back in in the following year they would have to take into account the fact that there would be a tax cut to take effect in January of the following year.
Mr. President, it was the intent of the Senate, and it was the intent of the House, that we comply with the budget resolution within the year that the budget applied to. It was not intended to apply to future years.
It makes no sense to say that no Senator can offer a tax amendment without the consent of the Budget Committee if the amendment's effect takes place in the year after the year in which the budget resolution applies. The Budget Committee has not yet acted on the resolution for that year, they have not proposed a spending limitation. they have not proposed what the income will be — so to limit the right of Senators to offer tax amendments in this way makes no sense. The Budget Act was never intended to be interpreted that way.
The last amendment was the Haskell amendment. I voted against it. I did not ask the Senate to agree to it. I did not ask the Senator to offer it. That amendment provided for a further corporate tax cut in 1980. The Senate just got through acquiescing in an amendment that does what I am urging Mr. ROTH be allowed to do, that is, to provide a tax cut within the budget this year, and the following year a further tax cut.
Nobody knows yet what the budget will be the following year. The whole idea is that the Budget Committee will cut the cloth to fit the pattern. Nobody will know until a budget resolution fora given year is developed what the pattern is going to be for that year, and in the meantime we have the right to act on amendments affecting that year just as the Roth amendment proposes. I am not for the amendment on its merits, but it says that you will cut taxes for the budget year and for the following year, and it was clearly intended under the budget process that a Senator should have the right to offer an amendment that does so.
Mr. CURTIS. Will the distinguished chairman yield for a question?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. CURTIS. Is it true that the prohibition against cutting the revenue within a year is for the purpose of having a fixed figure upon which those who make the budget can rely?
Mr. LONG. That is the idea.
Mr. CURTIS. To cut taxes for a subsequent year, in this case 1980, does not interfere with the budget procedure, does it?
Mr. LONG. For better or for worse, it does not. It may be that neither the Budget Committee nor the Senate might want to cut taxes in the following year, but a Senator has the right to offer an amendment that does so, and he does not need the approval of the Budget Committee, or a waiver.
Mr. CURTIS. The Senator's argument is very sound, it is logical. The purpose of this rule is to facilitate budget making and not have the amount of revenue fluctuating while they are in the process for that year. It was never intended as giving the Budget Committee a veto over what was done in future years.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LONG. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. LONG. I will be happy to yield later. I should like to reserve some time right now, if I may. I shall yield after the other side has had a chance to reply.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield? My question is really directed to the Senator from Maine. Will he yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I yield.
Mr. BUMPERS. As I understand it, this bill came out of the Finance Committee. It is about a $23 billion tax cut in its present form as reported. It is my understanding that the Budget Committee had allowed for somewhere around $18.5 to $19 billion in the second concurrent budget resolution. In that resolution. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. On a fiscal year basis. On a calendar year basis, it was $21 billion.
Mr. BUMPERS. In either case, whether it is fiscal year or calendar year basis, my question is, why is this bill not subject to a point of order, since it exceeds the second concurrent budget resolution?
Mr. MUSKIE. The tax reduction on a calendar year basis is $21 billion, but taking into account the previously enacted tax cuts, the totals amount to about $36 billion on a calendar year basis.
Mr. BUMPERS. Thirty-six billion dollars?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
The bill as it came out of the committee was within the constraints of the second concurrent budget resolution.
Mr. BUMPERS. If the committee bill has roughly $23 billion in cuts, how much of that is in new tax cuts and how much of it is continuing' the temporary tax cuts? Can the Senator answer that?
Mr. MUSKIE. I should really like to address this issue—
Mr. BUMPERS. I do not want to pursue that. I can ask this question any time. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say, first of all, that this was not an easy question for the Parliamentarian to resolve. He put it very well when he said to me:
Senator, when you put me between Muskie and Long, you put me between a rock and a hard place.
This language is not easy to interpret. But you have to look at it in terms of the consequences of the optional interpretations which were considered.
Senator LONG argues that because the Budget Act does not permit us to challenge tax cuts which take effect in 1981 or 1982 or 1983 or 1984 or 1985 or any year thereafter — and that is a fact — as a result, we ought not to have any control over 1980 and 1979. That is the effect of his interpretation. As I shall try to point out, that means that the budget process would have no control over revenues.
He concedes that, with respect to a year for which we are writing a budget resolution, we ought to have control over revenues. Yet if we were to adopt his interpretation with respect to section 303 as it applies to 1980, then that section, if applied a year ago to 1979, would have permitted the Committee on Finance to enact any tax cut it pleased, whatever its impact on fiscal 1979 revenues.
What he is saying is that until January 1, the Committee on Finance can recommend any tax bill it pleases; once January 1 comes around, then we have to worry about the first concurrent resolution for the next fiscal year, but we do not worry before January 1.
Mr. President, it is a ridiculous theory. The purpose of section 303 is very simply stated in terms of the Roth bill: The Roth bill would cause a reduction of revenues by 7 percent in 1979, another 13 percent in 1980, and a further 10 percent in 1981. The calendar year 1980 increment of this 3-year tax reduction will occur during fiscal year 1980, the year during which Senator LONG now wants an absolutely free hand from the budget process. That portion of the 3-year reduction will amount to $36 billion of additional revenue reductions in that fiscal year alone.
The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance would like to suggest that this should be of no concern to the budget process, none whatsoever, because the budget process does not apply to 1980. If the budget process does not apply to 1980 now and the Roth amendment should pass and that $36 billion of additional revenue reductions take effect, have we not already done for next year's budget resolution what Senator LONG says we could not do earlier this year with respect to this year's concurrent resolution? We will have reduced revenues by $36 billion before any budget has been presented by the Budget Committee to the Congress for its consideration. We will have decided a year in advance to reduce revenues by $36 billion.
I do not know how much good it does for us to debate legal technicalities on the floor of the Senate with Senators who have not had a chance to study the technicalities of the Budget Act. But we have to understand what the language of section 303 means. The best authority on that is the legislative history of the act, which, with all respect to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, he misinterpreted. Page 894 of the legislative history of the Budget Act refers to bills or resolutions which increase or decrease revenues in a fiscal year following the budget year — that is the language the Senator read. What he did not tell us is that the words "budget year" referred to mean the budget year for which no first concurrent resolution has been adopted. That is budget year 1980. At this point in time, that is 1980, because 1979 has been acted upon. So those words "budget year" in that legislative history mean 1980. That sentence means 1981 is open, as the Senator and I agree, but not 1980 — because the words "budget year" throughout this legislative history mean budget year for which the first concurrent resolutions described in section 301(a) are applicable.
What I am saying is that if the Senator's interpretation prevails, not only do we wipe out the budget process with respect to 1980 revenues, but we endanger the process for revenues altogether, because I see no point in trying to protect the budget from January 1 to May 15 if, prior to that time, Congress is free to enact any tax cuts for any fiscal year that it chooses. We must protect the next fiscal year from year to year. The fact that we do not have protection for all out years is bad enough. Incidentally, the bill that Congressman ULLMAN introduced initially prohibited tax increases in all out years for which no first concurrent resolution has been adopted. The Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, to protect their turf, got that section amended so that we have protection, if we have it, only for the current fiscal year and the next one.
I do not think it is an argument against having protection for those 2 years that there is not protection in subsequent years. But if you wipe away the protection of the next fiscal year by Senator LONG's interpretation of this language, for all practical purposes, you have eliminated the discipline of the budget process from the revenue side of the budget. May I say that the Parliamentarian's opinion referred to the practice of the Senate in this respect.
I ask unanimous consent that I may have printed in the RECORD the five instances demonstrating the truth of the Parliamentarian's statement in that respect, the practice of the Senate with respect to sections 303(a) and 303(b) (2), including the practice of the Committee on Finance.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MEMORANDUM
To Senator Muskie.
From John McEvoy.
Date September 26, 1978.
Subject operation of section 303.
SUMMARY
Section 303(a) f the Budget Act bars consideration of spending debt or revenue legislation which would become effective for a fiscal year until the first concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed to.
Section 303(b) (2) contains a limited exception to this general rule. The exemption allows consideration of legislation increasing or decreasing revenues which first become effective in the fiscal year following "the fiscal year to which the concurrent resolution applies."
Section 303(a) provides a bar against consideration of revenue and appropriations bills for any fiscal year for which no concurrent budget resolution has been agreed to. For example, it would not have been in order on May 14, 1978 for the Senate to consider a tax bill which first became effective in fiscal year 1979, since no first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1979 was adopted by Congress until May 16.
Section 303(b) (2) provides a limited exception to the bar of Section 303(a) in the case of revenue legislation which first becomes effective in years after the year foreclosed by Section 303(a). Thus a bill would have been in order on May 14, 1978, which first became effective in 1980 or some later year.
After Congress agreed to a budget resolution on May 16, 1978 tax legislation which first became effective in fiscal year 1979 was in order, because a first concurrent budget resolution for that year had been adopted. Tax legislation first effective in 1980 was barred by Section 303(a). Consideration of tax legislation which first became effective in1981 was possible pursuant to Section 303 (b) (2).
The language of Section 303, its legislative history, and Senate practice compel these conclusions and support no other. If, after Congress had adopted the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget on May 16, 1978, when FY 1979 became open for consideration of revenue changes, fiscal year 1980 was open as well, then the Section 303(b) exception must be said to render Section 303(a) inoperative. No such result can be justified.
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE
Section 303(a) of the Budget Act provides in pertinent part as follows:
First concurrent resolution on the budget must be adopted before legislation providing new budget authority, new spending authority, or changes in revenue or public debt limit is considered.
Sec. 303. (a) In General—It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or resolution (or amendment thereto) which provides—
(2) an increase or decrease in revenues to become effective during a fiscal year; until the first concurrent resolution on the budget for such year has been agreed to pursuant to section 301.
Section 303(b) (2) of the Budget Act contains the following exception to the general rule set forth in Section 303 (a) :
(b) Exceptions—Subsection (a) does not apply to any bill or resolution—
(2) increasing or decreasing revenues which first become effective in a fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the concurrent resolution applies.
A common sense interpretation of Section 303 makes its meaning clear. Reading these two related provisions together compels the conclusion that, prior to agreement on a first concurrent resolution for a fiscal year, tax changes to become effective in that year cannot be considered. But tax changes "which first become effective in a fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the resolution applies can be considered. For example, Section 303(a) (2) barred consideration of tax changes for fiscal year 1979 on May 14, 1978, prior to the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1979 on May 16, 1978. Pursuant to Section 303(b), however, tax changes for fiscal year 1980— "the fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the concurrent resolution applies" — would have been in order on May 14.
After the first resolution for FY '79 had been agreed to on May 16, consideration of FY 1979 tax changes were in order. But Section 303(a) barred revenue changes "which first became effective" in fiscal 1980, the next year for which no first concurrent resolution had been agreed to.
Section 303(b) (2), which applied to fiscal year 1980 and years thereafter prior to May 16, applied thereafter to FY 1981 and the years thereafter.
There is no room in the language of the statute for a contrary interpretation. If Section 303(b) (2) applied to FY 1980 before May 16 and afterward as well, when would it become applicable to 1981? If Section 303(b) (2) applied to both FY 1979 and 1980 after May 16, 1978, by what token did it preclude consideration of FY 1979 tax changes before that date?
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The legislative history of the Budget Act confirms this common sense interpretation of the statute.
An exception, contained in Subsection 303(2) (1) of the Budget Act, for certain appropriations bills was contained in substantially similar form in all versions of the Budget Act reported in either House. The exception for revenue bills was added by the Senate Rules Committee during its consideration of the bill and was never considered by the House, except as part of the Conference report. It is to the report of the Senate Rules Committee, the conference report, and the debates on the legislation contained in those reports to which one must look for the correct interpretation of Section 303(b) (2).
Here is how the Rules Committee report described the exception, now contained in Section 303(b), to Section 303 for revenue bills. The exception was created to provide that "legislation that provides budget authority or changes in revenues to be initially available in fiscal years which are two or more years ahead may be taken up before action on the first concurrent resolution for that year."
The conference version of the Budget Act incorporates this Rules Committee revenue exception verbatim. The Statement of Managers accompanying the conference report on the Budget Act does not shed additional light on the statement of the purpose of Section 303(b) set forth in the Rules Committee report. Referring to the Section 303(b) exception, the Statement of Managers says: "The conference substitute permits the consideration of advance appropriations and advance revenue changes prior to the adoption of the first budget resolution for the fiscal year to which they apply." The exception was not elaborated in the debate of the conference report in either House.
The statement of purpose contained in the Rules Committee report — that the exception applied to fiscal years "which are two or more ahead" — remains the clearest statement as to the meaning of the exception.
In actual practice, applying the "two years ahead" measure of the Section 303(4) (2) exception reaches the same result as the common sense interpretation apparent on the face of the statute. In FY 1978 the exception applied to FY 1980 and beyond. In FY 1979,it applied to 1981 and beyond.
PRACTICE OF THE SENATE
The Chair has never been called upon to rule on the question of the meaning of Section 303(b) (2). The Senate has, however, followed a practice since the effective date of Section 303 which is totally consistent with the interpretation of that Section and the exception contained in Section 303(b) (2) as set forth in this memorandum. All committees of the Senate, including the Committees on Finance and Appropriations, have followed this practice.
The Finance Committee has, for example, sought waivers of the application of Section303(a) each time it has reported a tax bill which first took effect the following fiscal year.
On March 28, 1977, during fiscal year 1977 but before the first budget resolution for 1978 was adopted, the Finance Committee reported S. Res. 126, seeking a waiver of the bar of Section 303(a) against consideration of H.R. 3477, because that bill contained revenue reductions (extension of $12.5 billion in temporary income tax reductions) which first became effective in fiscal year 1978.
On November 1, 1977, during fiscal year 1978, but before the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1979 had been adopted, the Finance Committee reported S. Res. 313, seeking a waiver of the bar of Section 303 to the consideration of the Social Security Finance Amendments which provided substantial tax increases which first will become effective during fiscal year 1979.
And on August 7, 1978, during fiscal year1978, but after the first budget resolution for 1979 had been adopted, the Committee on Finance reported S. 524, seeking a waiver of the bar of Section 303(a) to the consideration of H.R. 3946, which provided certain tax credits and entitlements effective in FY 1979 but which increased in 1980, giving rise to the need for the waiver.
On September 16, 1977, during fiscal year 1977, the Committee on Banking and Currency reported S. 250, seeking a waiver of the bar of Section 303 to the consideration of S. 2055, a bill governing the Federal Reserve, which would have the effect of reducing revenue collection by the Treasury commencing in FY 1978. S. 2055 contained a provision which made it effective a year after its enactment. That enactment was expected to occur in October, 1977 during FY 1978. Since the bill would be enacted in FY 1978 before a first concurrent resolution for FY 1979 was adopted, and would cause revenue losses in FY 1979, a waiver of Section 303 was required for its consideration in the Senate.
On February 25, 1976, the Committee on Appropriations reported S. Res. 392, a multi-year appropriation which provided budget authority which became available in 1976 and additional budget authority which became available in 1977. The waiver was sought for that portion of the bill which made budget authority available in 1977 since no first concurrent resolution for that year had been adopted.
No case exists, which is known to the Budget Committee since the effective date of Section 303, in which this Senate practice has not been followed.
Mr. MUSKIE. That record speaks for itself. This is the first time the Parliamentarian has been asked to make a ruling on this point. He has been asked to make a lot of difficult rulings under the Budget Act, as any new piece of legislation of that complexity would require, and, from his personal standpoint, I am sorry about that.
But, nevertheless, this is an important issue. If we want to protect the budget process on the revenue side, the Parliamentarian's ruling must be sustained.
It would be preferable to have protection in all future years but we do not have it. I concede that.
But when we are considering a possible revenue reduction in 1980 of about $36 billion, barely a month before we begin consideration of the next concurrent budget resolution for that year, we ought to insist upon regular procedure.
A resolution waiving section 303 of the Budget Act for the Packwood, Roth, and similar amendments has been introduced, and it is on the agenda of the Budget Committee for its meeting tomorrow morning. This waiver procedure is not a veto, as Senator CURTIS suggests.
All it does is require the Budget Committee, within 10 days to give the Senate the benefit of its assessment of the legislation.
The Senate can agree with the Budget Committee or disagree with it. The Budget Committee cannot veto.
So the Roth amendment, presumably, will be back on the floor for consideration with or without the favorable assessment of the Budget Committee. The Packwood amendment, likewise.
The Packwood amendment has had good sledding in the Budget Committee, as a matter of fact, if I recall accurately.
So I think we ought not put aside relatively gentle discipline in order to establish an interpretation of this provision which, in effect, would put revenues outside our reach.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma wanted some time.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. President, I am not a lawyer and I do not propose to get into the legal aspect of the Budget Act. My purpose here is to remind the Senate that Congress has adopted an orderly budget process and is learning to live with the disciplines we set for ourselves when that process was enacted into law.
One piece of evidence that the process is working is the fact that we had a significant reduction in the fiscal year 1979 deficit, which we have been able to accomplish over the last 8 months.
I think the Members will remember that when the President sent his budget, he anticipated a deficit for fiscal year 1979 of a little over $60 billion.
During the year, and partially due to the spending shortfalls and reestimates, I want to make certain we all understand that this is not all due to cuts in spending, but we now have cut that anticipated deficit down to $38.8 billion. This is a reduction of $21 billion.
I feel we should not take action here that is going to undercut the budget discipline, just as we begin to see some beneficial effects of this process.
Now, what the chairman has requested here seems to me to be fair. A point of order would appear to lie against several amendments, and one of them is an amendment of my own.
But there is a relatively quick and orderly way this problem can be resolved, and a remedy for this is provided in the Budget Act.
I have already filed at the desk a waiver request for these amendments, for the tuition tax credit, for the Roth-Kemp amendment, and for my own amendment, and as the chairman said, the Budget Committee scheduled a meeting for 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
By early afternoon, after the amendments have been revised in an orderly way, I am sure the problems will be resolved in a way agreeable to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee.
I feel confident the waiver will be granted, and that will eliminate the point of order.
On tuition tax credits, a majority of committee members have already voted in favor of the issue — the vote was 9 to 4 in favor when the issue came before the committee as part of the budget resolution last May, and I believe we can count on at least 12 of the 16 members as favoring the waiver tomorrow.
Regarding the Roth-Kemp tax cut, at least half of the members have been supporters and while there has not been a specific vote inside .the committee, I feel reasonably certain that a clear majority will vote for the waiver. As to my own amendment, I am willing to take 'my chances.
Mr. President, the waiver process does not make the Budget Committee the traffic cop of the Senate's business. Even if we were to report unfavorably on the waiver tomorrow, the Senate does not have to accept that verdict. The Senate has the option to approve or not approve the resolution regardless of the Budget Committee. The purpose of the action requested today is not intended to thwart the will of the Senate or even upset the timing of floor debate.
All the waiver step amounts to is to make certain that carefully and thoughtfully considered procedures to avoid hasty ill-conceived action are followed.
The Budget Act established the budget process in order to put an end to the business we have seen on the Senate floor in the past years where someone brings up an amendment quickly either to spend money or cut revenues and no orderly way has been found to take a careful look at what the long-term results will be.
I am convinced that the procedures which have been set in the act should be followed and not scrapped this early in the efforts to make the process work, and I trust my colleagues will agree.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. LONG. Let me just explain the situation in a word. We are presently bound by the second concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1979. I referred to the year following the budget year as fiscal year 1980. The Senator says that 1980 is the budget year I am talking about, and that 1980 is the budget year this committee report makes reference to when it talks about bills or resolutions which increase or decrease revenues effective in a fiscal year following the budget year.
Now, Mr. President, we cannot be bound by two budget resolutions at the same time. We can be bound by one. We are bound at present by the budget resolution for fiscal year 1979.
When we come back in January, Mr. President, I am not arguing that we can act on tax amendments effective in fiscal year 1980. I am arguing that we are bound on our appropriation bills and our tax bills for 1979 under the budget resolution agreed to, and that we are not bound for fiscal year 1980 under a budget resolution that does not yet exist.
I am talking about the right of every Senator to offer a tax amendment, whether the Budget Committee waives it or not, which becomes effective in a future budget year.
I yield to the Senator such time as he wants.
Mr. DANFORTH. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee.
I just have three very quick points to make.
The first is that my reading of the committee report of the Rules Committee accompanying the Budget Act of 1974 indicates that out year tax reductions were certainly contemplated by the Rules Committee at that time.
Commenting on section 303(b) of the Budget Act, the committee said that section 303(a) does not apply to bills or resolutions in the following four categories, and then in No. 4 it said that bills or resolutions shall increase or decrease revenue effective in the fiscal year following the budget year.
Again, the need for legislation well in advance of the year in which it takes effect underlies the, exception. Changes in the general tax rates, for example, are often graduated over a period of years in order to give predictability and allow for planning by those affected.
The second point that I would like to make is that—
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DANFORTH. I will yield the floor in about 2 minutes.
The second point I would like to make is that in the way the Senate has handled that provision — although, so far as I know, no point of order has been raised — but in the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 there was at least one provision providing for out year tax reductions, including the year immediately following the year in which it was enacted.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DANFORTH. I will yield the floor in about 2 minutes.
In the Tax Reform Act of 1976 there were at least four different provisions in which the tax rates were cut for a period of years, including the next succeeding year.
Finally, it seems to me, as a practical matter, that it is something of a necessity. The reason for that is the effect that inflation has of putting people into constantly higher tax brackets. Unless there is a rapid adjustment, as a practical matter, for what inflation does, putting people into higher marginal tax brackets and them taxing them, while they have had no real increase in income, the effect of that is that we are financing the deficit of any un-legislated tax increase caused simply by virtue of what inflation is doing.
Therefore, unless we can provide for some out year protection from increased taxes, we have the anomalous situation of the taxpayer, the following year, paying a higher tax rate which has not ever been legislated, and the Treasury reaping the windfall.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is nothing which this Senator has said that conceivably could be interpreted as stating that it is impossible for us to consider tax cuts for out years.
All the Budget Act requires is that the Budget Committee consider a waiver resolution and make a recommendation to the Senate regarding such cuts. For those who want to waive the Budget Act and have good reasons for doing so, presumably the Budget Committee is amenable to persuasion, as is the Finance Committee.
All I am arguing for is that our fiscal policy be made in the rational way the budget process is supposed to work.
Let us look at Senate Resolution 313, which was reported from the Finance Committee a year ago by Senator LONG. What was its purpose? To waive section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to the consideration of H.R. 5322, a bill providing additional financing for the Social Security System.
What was the reason given for reporting the waiver resolution? I will read the second page:
That waiver of such section 303(a) is necessary in order to enable the Senate promptly to consider changes in social security financing which are provided for in H.R. 5322, as reported by the Committee on Finance, which are urgently needed in order to assure that the program is adequately funded and which first became effective in fiscal year 1979.
That waiver resolution, I say to my good friend from Missouri, which was reported by Senator LONG, was approved by the Senate Budget Committee so that we could take that future year action which the Senator from Missouri argues my interpretation of the Budget Act prevents.
There is an explicit example of the error of the argument by the Senator from Missouri and of the fact that the chairman of the Finance Committee, himself, is as capable as he accuses the Parliamentarian of being, of changing his mind about the interpretation of section 303. This legislation and this waiver resolution for it, he reported out a year ago.
Now he changes his mind and wants to escape the discipline of the Budget Act and urges a different interpretation of section 303.
This is one of the five incidents the Parliamentarian relied upon to make his ruling. So if the Parliamentarian is now to be criticized by the chairman of the Finance Committee, the chairman of the Finance Committee, himself, gave the Parliamentarian one of the precedents upon which the Parliamentarian relied.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, we requested that waiver, because in that social security bill there were entitlement provisions which were prohibited by section 303(a) (4) of the Budget Act. We requested the waiver for an entirely different reason. There were other provisions in the bill that clearly would have required a waiver.
Furthermore, Mr. President, let me make this point: The Senate has not voted on this issue. The Senate just got through approving the Haskell amendment, which violates the very position the Senator takes with respect to the Roth amendment. The point has never been ruled on and decided by the Senate.
If someone is told by some on the Budget Committee, "You need a waiver," ordinarily they ask for a waiver.
I had never read this provision nor studied the express language before this matter came up. I was always under the impression that we were binding ourselves for the budget year for which we were approving a budget resolution.
I was on the original committee that started work on establishing the congressional budget process. It was composed of members of the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, among others, in the beginning. That was the first group to look at it. The whole idea was that we would bind ourselves for the budget year that the budget resolution would apply to.
Mind you, as to this particular language I am pointing out to the Senate, I dare say that most Members of the Senate have never studied it — never looked at the exact words or looked at the exact words in the committee report, in order to construe it.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I should like to make a few points.
The first is a general point which perhaps is so obvious that it escapes us. The language of the Rules Committee report referred to the "budget year." The "budget year" happens to be one of the oldest institutions of Anglo-Saxon Government. It is the 12-month period immediately ahead for which the Congress — or the Parliament — is legislating. No more than 12 months, so that the King will not have more than 12 months' worth of money.
It seems to me inconceivable that a careful Congress would have provided for 2 budget years without saying "2 budget years," but instead saying "the budget year."
The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, who knows I respect him, a moment ago said:
Maybe we should consider out year coverage as well.
What can "out year" means but the year after the budget year? Do we have an intermediate year? Does some unnamed year follow the budget year, and then out years begin after that?
Surely not. Surely, this refers to the budget year.
The Parliamentarian's ruling is baffling to me. I understand that the Senator from Maine might think we are being imprudent, but that does not affect the nature of the statute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will not use the 12 minutes, but I say to the Senator from New York that I presume that "budget year" means the same thing for section 303(b) (2) as it does for section 302(a).If it does, then my interpretation is correct. If it means something different from what it has meant for the ages in one part of the statute and not the other, I have no answer to that historical judgment. My historical judgment is not as keen as that of the Senator from New York.
With respect to last year's social security bill waiver resolution, I say to the chairman of the Finance Committee that there is nothing in the language giving the reason for submitting the resolution which refers to entitlements in any way. The language is :
To consider changes in Social Security financing which are provided for in H.R. 5322 and which are urgently needed in order to assure that the program is adequately funded.
Mr. President, I understand that we do not all read all the legal and technical language we write around here. I must say that I have never undertaken to read the tax bills that the chairman of the Finance Committee reports out of committee every year or so, only to find myself confounded by changes in the law which I did not dream I was voting for or against.
However, I do not think that a Senator's awareness or unawareness has the effect of changing what the law says or does.
I repeat: The only point that needs to be made about this is that if the argument of the Senator from Louisiana prevails, not only will you wipe out budget discipline for 1980, but also, you will wipe it out for all the years in the future. I cannot imagine that the 7½ month hole in the calendar year will be overlooked as a wide-open opportunity by any Senator, including those who are ingenious in the writing of tax laws, to write any tax bill they like — tax cuts to the roof.
Because that is what the Senator is arguing we ought to have, a big 7½ month open door from May 15 to January 1. That is his interpretation of the Budget Act. Incidentally, the date January 1 does not appear anywhere in the Budget Act. But he says that is where the Budget Committee begins to have a responsibility with respect to revenues. From January 1 to May 15 is the only time we have any business to consider tax legislation for the coming fiscal year. The Budget Act does not refer to January 1. If we follow his interpretation, there is a 7 month open door, from May through December, when legislation, irrespective of its impact on the budget process and future budgets, can be enacted into law. And I cannot imagine that that door will be left closed very long.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Senator talks about the Finance Committee having the right to write anything it wants to. The Senator it not objecting to a Finance Committee amendment. He is objecting to an amendment being offered on the floor by a Senator. This is not a Finance Committee amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not mention the Finance Committee. I said any Senator.
Mr. LONG. I believe he referred to the Finance Committee. The Senator is not making a point of order about a Finance Committee amendment. He is making a point of order about a floor amendment. We are talking about the right of any Member of this body to offer a tax amendment effective in 1980.
Now, most Senators are lawyers, but some Senators are not lawyers, so let me just appeal to their commonsense.
The Senator is making this argument. Here we are in calendar year 1978. This is October 1978, and he is arguing that here in October 1978 we are now in budget year 1980. That is his argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not make any such argument.
Mr. LONG. That is what he is saying. He is referring—
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator knows that was not my argument.
Mr. LONG. That is exactly what he is contending.
Let me read from the same section he is quoting. He refers to:
Bills or resolutions which increase or decrease revenues effective in a fiscal year following the budget year.
What is the budget year? He contends that we have the right to offer an amendment effective in the year following the budget year. What is the budget year to which this refers? We are in budget year 1979. We are in calendar year 1978.
The Senator from Maine was contending that we are in budget year 1980. He just got through saying we are not in budget year 1980. I wish he would makeup his mind. He seems to be contending that we are now in budget year 1980, though it is only 1978.
People know that you can be in 1978 and be in budget year 1979, but I challenge anyone, including the Senator from Maine, to stand up here and say that we in 1978 are now in budget year 1980. I challenge him to say it, but that is his argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not know where the Senator from Louisiana is.
Mr. LONG. I wish the Senator would make his remarks on his own time, not my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is on my time. I do not know where Senator LONG is. But I am not in budget year 1980.
Mr. LONG. I know I am in 1978, not in1980.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not in budget year 1980. But I am saying that this budget process applies to 1980. That I have said and I will continue to say as long as this apparently fruitless argument continues.
Mr. LONG. That is just exactly the point, Mr. President.
Mr. MUSKIE. And it applies, may I say, not only to bills reported from the Finance Committee, but under the express language of the Budget Act.
Mr. LONG. On the Senator's time.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator suggests that I am picking on Mr. ROTH or Mr. PACKWOOD outside the Budget Act. To the contrary, they have as much right as the Finance Committee to have their amendments considered under the procedures of the Budget Act, and I will defend those.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I am not contending for the right of Mr. ROTH to cut taxes beyond the budget resolution, not only for fiscal year 1979 but for the whole calendar year 1979. As far as I am concerned, I would be willing to go along with the Senator from Maine for both the budget year and calendar year 1979. I am just talking about the year after that. He is contending that the budget year, which in my judgment is 1979 — that is the following calendar year, but we are in that budget year right now — he is contending we are now in budget year 1980, and I contend we are not. It is just about that simple.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield first to the Senator from Kansas and then I will yield to the Senator from Delaware.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2½ minutes remaining.
Mr. DOLE. I will be brief.
Mr. LONG. I will yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I say I find myself caught between two outstanding chairmen, my chairman of the Budget Committee and my chairman on the Finance Committee, and some of my friends are on one side and some of my friends are on the other, and the old story is I am for my friends.
I only suggest it does not make any sense to this Senator to say we are cutting taxes in 1979, 1981, and 1982 and 1983, but we cannot offer a bill that might reduce taxes in 1980.
I have the same difficulty.
I know it is very confusing to read section 303 as everyone read it on the floor. It seems very clear. The exception seems very clear. The waiver sort of confounds the problem.
I just say as a matter of good planning trying to get ahold of the problems we have in the tax and economic area we should be able to offer tax reductions or if need be even tax increases in out years.
I suggest that in a rather close call we should sustain the chairman of the Finance Committee.
Mr. LONG. I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to add one point to the statement of Senator DOLE.
It does seem to me that as a matter of commonsense the exception to the language that Senator MUSKIE read is very clear, that it applies to all succeeding years. I think on this point it is important to again read what the Senate Rules Committee report said. I quote again:
The need for legislation well in advance of the year in which it takes effect underlies this exception. Changes in the general tax rates, for example, are often graduated over a period of years in order to give predictability and allow for language for those affected.
Under this language from the Rules Committee report it is contradictory to say we can have a tax cut which can apply to 1979, that cannot apply to 1980,but can apply to 1981 and 1982.
Just to show how ridiculous that reasoning would be, we could avoid this whole problem by changing the effective date of the second phase of our tax cut to September 30, 1979, and then the Budget Committee would not be able to make any point of order. So I just conclude by saying that commonsense dictates that the Senate has the right to propose multi-year tax cuts.
Mr. MUSKIE. I never heard a more ridiculous argument, may I say to my good friend from Delaware. He is arguing that because we do not have discipline with respect to all future years we should not have any with respect to any. That does not sound like the conservative Senator from Delaware to me, except that he has an amendment he wishes to push and does not want to have any procedural roadblocks.
But, Mr. President, being chairman of this Budget Committee is often a very frustrating experience, because I find as we seek to enforce its discipline it often seems to be regarded as a personal exercise on my part.
I assure Senators I am interpreting this act as I see it. I have done my best to be sensitive to the prerogatives of my fellow Senators and other committees. Unavoidably there are lines that create potential confrontation and friction, and I have tried to minimize those.
But in this case this is not just my interpretation. My interpretation has been the practice of the Senate during all the years of the budget process. My interpretation is the ruling of the Parliamentarian. You have heard it read. It was a thoughtful one. He was subjected to pressure from two committee chairmen, and he did not reach his conclusion lightly. When we got it it was written. It was out of thoughtful consideration after hearing the arguments on both sides.
It comes down to this, gentlemen: Whether or not you fully understand the technicalities of the argument or of the legislative language, it comes down to this; if we accept Senator LONG's interpretation of 303(b) , the effect is to wipe out 303(a) and to make it practically meaningless with respect to budgetary discipline over revenues. That is a fact. That is the way I will interpret it as chairman of the Budget Committee if the Senate sustains Senator LONG, because the issue has been made too plain for me to interpret it otherwise.
Mr. President, if my colleague from Oklahoma wishes time I yield to him whatever time he likes.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I think most Members of the Senate will agree we have made real progress in the years since the Budget Act was passed in trying to restrain the out year spending. We can all remember the time when we used to be here considering appropriation bills, and some Member would stand up and want to add $200 million for child nutrition or veterans or some other worthy cause, and we would all agree without thinking of the impact. Now we have a process which makes us think through this spending, and we are restraining ourselves.
But the other problem that gets us into deficits and helps build up the huge debt is the way we have added uncontrolled spending programs.
The way I interpret the budget, it was intended that we have the same restraint on the revenue side that all of us expected to have on the expenditure side. I believe the issue before us is whether or not we want to remove from the Budget Act this restraint on the spending side, and it is for that reason that I support the position taken by the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back all of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LONG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. LONG. If one wishes to sustain theappeal he would vote "no," is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If one wishes to sustain the appeal of the ruling of the Chair he would vote "no."
Mr. LONG. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If one wishes to sustain the ruling of the Chair he would vote "yea."
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted — yeas 38, nays 48, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38 and the nays are 48. The ruling of the Chair is not — is not — sustained.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the ruling of the Chair was not sustained.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the motion to reconsider. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senate will be in order, in order for the clerk to record the votes.
The Senate will be in order..
The clerk may proceed.
The second assistant legislative clerk resumed and concluded the call of the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 46, nays 40, as follows:
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I said in the closing moments of debate on this issue that I would accept the Senate's will as a direct interpretation of the Budget Act. The budget process, as I interpreted it before this action, whenever any amendment offered had the effect of breaching the revenue floor or breaching any requirement of the Budget Act, I felt I had a responsibility to warn the Senate and to insist upon the procedures of the act. You have now said to me, "Mr. Chairman, that is none of your business. We write revenue legislation on the floor." That, as I understand it, are my new orders. and I shall follow them.