October 7, 1978
Page 34567
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for an answer to that question?
Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor, as I indicated to the Senator this morning. We will have the same ground rules if he wants to have a dialog. Therefore, on the basis that I maintain my right to the floor, I will be happy to have a discussion with the Senator.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I am not going to object to the Senator from Alaska's yielding to the Senator from Maine nor the Senator from Maine yielding to the Senator. from Alaska, but I think we have developed a procedure that is rather new around here, and that is that we can hold the floor, and release it to someone else and still retain it. I would just indicate, without attempting to affect this particular matter at all, that I will object in the future, because I think otherwise we will not be able to get the business of the Senate done.
Mr. STEVENS. I might say I had the same opinion this morning. I am not, however, going into the business of yielding for any particular time because I do think that should not happen.
I did suggest another concept of yielding for a particular period of time, but I will be happy to yield to my friend for a series of questions, as long as I do not lose my right to the floor.
I think there should be some discussion about this because I am one who supported the Senator's sunset amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to yield for a question without losing his right to the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will put my response in the form of a question, then we can avoid the problem.
I understand the problem. Occasionally it is useful, depending on the eye of the beholder.
We ought to use the technique used this morning. But that is all right. We will all have to figure out our own ways of taking advantage of parliamentary situations.
But the Senator may not be aware of this information which is on page 4 of this yellow document on tax expenditures under the heading of "Major Types of Tax Expenditures" which reads as follows:
Tax expenditures may take any of the following forms: (1) exclusions, exemptions, and deductions, which reduce taxable income; (2) preferential tax rates, which reduce taxes by applying lower rates to part or all of a taxpayer's income; (3) credits, which are subtracted from taxes as ordinarily computed; and (4) deferrals of tax, which result from delayed recognition of income or from allowing in the current year deductions that are properly attributable to a future year.
So, in response to the Senator's question, the word "credits" means what it means in this definition for the purposes of at least understanding the analysis of this document.
I simply provide that as an answer to the Senator's question and hope it may be useful.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Maine.
I know we have a little problem here in my asking questions and trying to hold on to the floor but I hope I can.
I did look at page 4 and I looked at the Budget Act.
Why does this amendment apply to special exclusions, special exemptions, and special deductions?
The reference the Senator just read referred to exclusions, exemptions, or deductions.
Now, why is this language—
Mr. MUSKIE. What is the content of the words in which special—
Mr. STEVENS. That is in the Glenn amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Glenn amendment?