October 14, 1978
Page 37592
CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report on the tax bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to briefly put some questions to the chairman of the Finance Committee.
Mr. President, this will not take long. Because of the language in the tax conference report, we must have some legislative history on the floor to clarify it. I wonder if I could have Senator Long's attention at this point.
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Was it the intention of the conferees to repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins bill?
Mr. LONG. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. To the extent we may find that the outlay and GNP share figures in this tax bill are inconsistent with meeting our full employment goals, was it the intention of the conferees that we should abandon our full employment goals at the price of leaving a million or more men unemployed?
Mr. LONG. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. The congressional budget process requires Congress to set in its budget resolutions an appropriate level of outlays each year for the coming fiscal year.
Do the conferees intend that these outlay and GNP share figures should be met even if they do not seem justified in light of prevailing and expected economic conditions In future years?
Mr. LONG. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. Are these outlay and GNP shares intended to set the outlay figures for the next 5 fiscal years?
Mr. LONG. They are not.
Mr. MUSKIE. Finally, is it the intention of the conference report to repeal or interfere with the functioning of the congressional budget process as provided for in the Budget Act?
Mr. LONG. No. The statement in the conference report, and the language which we hope will be signed into law by the President, is a statement of national policy. It is not only a statement of national policy but the Humphrey-Hawkins bill is such, the Budget Act is another, and these must be reconciled each with the other, and they each have good purposes, and one must read them together and each must be administered in its own right.
This language to which we refer is not mandatory, is not binding. It is advisory, and it suggests a course of action which, as of today, we believe to be desirable and a very good approach to take.
It may be that changing circumstances might suggest that we should do otherwise, but at the moment this appears to be a very desirable course and the language so suggests.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman for that understanding. Let me pose just one further point.
When I saw this language, I considered the section 306 point of order question, not as something that I would propose with pleasure — because I understand the difficulties the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has faced all night long and all day yesterday, trying to accommodate what we put into the Senate tax bill with the provisions of the House bill — but as a matter I thought was my duty to consider. But I think this legislative history is reassuring to anyone who might entertain the doubts I had.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Louisiana has done us all a service, and done the country a service. Therefore, I shall vote for this conference report in reliance upon this colloquy which the Senator from Maine, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has just had with the Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the Finance Committee and principal Senate conferee.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, my view of the conference report is substantially affected by the colloquy which has just taken place. I join with Senator JAVITS in drawing reassurance as to the meaning of the conference report from the colloquy which has just taken place between the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator MUSKIE, and the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and the leading conferee, Senator LONG. The questions raised by the chairman of the Budget Committee as to the interrelation between the provisions of the conference report and the Humphrey-Hawkins bill and between the provisions of the conference report and the Budget Act are fundamentally over.
It is in reliance on the answers given by the very able chairman of the Finance Committee that I will support him in offering the recommittal motion and in voting for the conference report.