August 15, 1978
Page 26106
Mr. MUSKIE. What was the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if we pass a tuition tax credit, the vote of the Senate on the Metzenbaum amendment indicates that it is the judgment of the Senate that no one should be denied a tax credit because he is too rich.
I believe that the counterpart of that judgement is that no one should be denied this tax credit because he is too poor.
Mr. President, many times I have voted against measures that seemed meritorious to me. I have voted that some measures were not germane, because I thought we should stick to a germaneness rule. I have lost several times in recent years because of that. It has happened two times during this last month.
Here, Mr. President, it would be a complete travesty if we say, "You cannot be denied the tax credit because you are too rich, but you can be denied it because you are too poor and do not owe quite enough in taxes."
I have no doubt what the Senate's view would be — if the Senators vote on the merits — of my amendment.
The Senate would decide to give the tax credit whether it is a credit against your income tax, or whether it is more than your tax, if you did not owe enough to get the full credit.
A refundable tax credit is already in the law. This credit is called the earned income credit. We provide it for the working poor. We give a working poor man a right to a refundable tax credit because he is working and trying to support his family, instead of being on the welfare. The same thing, Mr. President, ought to be true if a poor working man wants to send his youngster to college. Sending a child to college is a great sacrifice for a low-income family. But if they want to do it, they ought to have the help of a refundable tuition credit.
Mr. President, I suppose an objection will be raised that my amendment does not comply with the Budget Act.
Well, that may be so. But in this case, Mr. President, I just do not feel like standing still for the kind of miscarriage of justice which would occur if that objection defeated my amendment. It would be unfair to deny the tax credit to the least well off of all Americans. I may be compelled to appeal the ruling of the Chair in this case. I think we would be justified in doing so.
Mr. President, I would point out that the cost of this amendment to benefit lower income people would be only $45 million in fiscal year 1979, $81 million infiscal year 1980, $133 million in fiscal year 1981, $204 million in fiscal year 1982, and $196 million in fiscal year 1983. It would not work out to more than about 10 percent of the cost of the bill.
For my part, I would prefer that those who are less fortunate have the benefit of this bill just as those who are more fortunate. I am pleased to vote so that no one would be denied the credit because he is in reasonably good circumstances. I think that we also should not deny the credit to someone because he is in less fortunate circumstances.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. We have been talking here about helping the poor, helping the poor, that is what this is all about, that the poor are unable to send their children to college. This amendment would take care of the really poor, as the Senator has so well put it, who are unable to take advantage of the tax credit because they are so poor, their earnings are so small, that they do not pay enough taxes to even take advantage of the credit provided by the bill.
If we are going to provide credit to the rich, as this bill would, and we are sayingwe are intent upon helping the poor to send their children to college, the amendment which the Senator from Louisiana offers is one which just fits the bills. I rise in support of this amendment.
(Mr. PAUL G. HATFIELD assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order.
First of all on procedural grounds, which I will explain as extensively as I can within the time limitation I have.
The first tuition tax credit bill reported by the Finance Committee had this provision included.
The Finance Committee also reported out a waiver resolution as required under the Budget Act. The waiver resolution is required in part because of this refundable provision. That waiver resolution, as required by the Budget Act, was sent to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee rejected it on other grounds. The Finance Committee reconvened and reported the bill we have been considering on the Senate floor, striking the provisions that met with the disapproval of the Budget Committee.
So if the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee really intends to fight for a principle, why did he not fight it through the Budget Committee in accordance with the procedures of the Budget Act, face the waiver resolution, which was reported unfavorably, and face the fight on that resolution?
Unfortunately for those who are concerned with the budget process, this amendment is subject to a point of order just as would the original bill have been subject to a point of order if it had been referred to the Budget Committee.
So this is the Finance Committee chairman's final act in a strategy to get around the Budget Act, to get around the Budget Committee, and to bring this proposal to the Senate.
I warned the Senate yesterday that this was coming. Another Senator gave consideration to offering it and rejected it on the basis of the next point I am going to make. In any case, this is a clear case of a strategy which backed off the bill the Finance Committee really wanted, a bill that would have cost $5.3 billion a year by 1983. That is the bill they really wanted, but they knew the Budget Act required a waiver resolution. They reported it out, it came to the Budget Committee, we debated it at length, reported it unfavorably by a vote of 9 to 4 to the Senate floor.
After that action was taken by the Budget Committee and in order to avoid a fight on that waiver resolution, the Finance Committee chose this other route, with a bill with lower benefits, a lower cost, and without this refundable provision.
That is what has taken place, and I cannot think, if I said nothing more, of a clearer way for the Senate to repudiate the budget process than to support this proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Finance.
I make another point: Under the provisions of this bill, a family would be eligible for a tax credit up to $250. However, recipients of direct categorical assistance for education, low- and moderate-income families will receive little, if any, assistance from the tax credit since the amount of the grant is deducted from the prospective tax credit. So that, for the poor, this refundable credit provision will provide no assistance, because the bill itself trades off the tax credit against the direct categorical aid programs.
So we are being asked to go through a procedure in defiance of the budget process to provide no benefit to the people that the chairman of the Finance Committee will tell us he is intending to help.
To take up the time of the Senate at this late hour on this bill for those purposes, seems to me to be indefensible. I do not think I need to say anything more on this bill, so I yield the floor.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if there is any question about an offset in the credit bill which affects welfare or other aid, we can take care of that matter when the Finance Committee acts on the welfare bill. If it is the judgment of the Senate that low-income people should have the same benefit as those who are better fixed, we shall provide that result in the bills within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. That is no problem.
The problem, Mr. President, is with the budget process. I voted for that budget process. I helped to establish it. I was on the original committee that worked on it. But, the one thing that I recognized about the budget process was that it would always be the decision of the Senate whether it wants to observe or waive the budget procedures.
Now under the Budget Committee procedures, if we think something is just, or unjust, but voting on it on the floor violates the Budget Act, we have to send it to the Budget Committee first.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield? The Senator knows that the waiver resolution comes to the Senate and whether it is unfavorable or favorable, the Budget Act makes the Senate the final actor. But the Senator chose not to go that route.
Mr. LONG. I do not know about that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator knows that very well.
Mr. LONG. I just happen to think that I am a better witness about what I know than somebody else is. But I know something about the Budget Act, because I helped to write that act — I played a part in some of the early negotiations on that bill and some of the first versions that were reported out. In the Budget Act, we posed a great number of procedural difficulties for somebody who wants to do something that the Budget Committee does not want done. But in the last analysis, the decision whether or not to do something is the decision of the Senate and not the decision of the Budget Committee. It is not the Finance Committee's decision, not the Appropriations Committee's decision; it is the full Senate's decision.
Now this bill now creates an obvious miscarriage of justice. No one will be denied the tax credit because he is too rich. The bill takes care of that group — the rich — very well. And I am proud that I have voted that way. But the bill does not allow some people the credit because they are too poor. That result is not fair.
As far as this Senator is concerned, I have tried to comply with the budget process. The Senate sent the bill to the Budget Committee, and to the Appropriations Committee. Then they sent it back to the Budget Committee. By the time everyone got through kicking it between one committee and another, it was decided that it could not contain the refundable feature.
So we said that we will try to add it on the floor. Then we come out to the floor and we are told there will be an objection on a point of order.
In the last analysis, if the majority of the Senate wants to do something, they will do it — notwithstanding the objections of the Budget Committee and notwithstanding the objections of some other committee. At some point, I say to the Senators, you just ought to vote your conscience on the merits of the issue in spite of all the procedural impediments that may be posed in front of you.
This refundable credit is not a big budget item. It adds less than 10 percent to the cost of the bill. At some point, we ought to go ahead, do what is right, and make the credit refundable.
Has the Chair ruled on the point of order?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have not yet made the point of order.
Mr. LONG. I will make that point of order that this is out of order under the Budget Act. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I make the proper point of order? I understand the Senator from Louisiana wants to cut me off by using the rules in spite of the fact that he is just arguing that every Senator—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has made a point of order which is not debatable
Mr. MUSKIE. What is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has made a point of order which is not debatable.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have another parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understood earlier, when I inquired of the Parliamentarian, that a point of order could not be raised until all time is expended. The time on this amendment has not been expended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit on this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. DOLE and Mr. MOYNIHAN. Regular order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
A point of order having been made that, under section 401 of the Budget Act, new spending authority is created by this amendment and further that section 303 of the Budget Act is violated, the point of order is sustained.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. I ask for the yeas and nays.
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, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll
The result was announced — yeas 75, nays 21, as follows:
So, the ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Senate.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 1659
(Purpose: To provide for the refunding of credit in excess of tax liability)
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 1659.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. I will explain it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, does the Senator have a copy of his amendment we can read?
Mr. LONG. It has the same basic effect as my earlier amendment. I have made a few changes. I have stricken some of the cross references and the conforming references. This amendment stands for the same moral principle as the earlier one, but it changes the legislative language, for parliamentary reasons.
Mr. MUSKIE. The vote just taken indicates that those technicalities can be very significant.
Mr. LONG. The Senator can appeal the ruling of the Chair, if he wishes.
Mr. MUSKIE. How long is the amendment? I am not inclined to object. I am reserving the right to object. I would like some clear idea
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has a right to have the amendment read.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not asking for that at this point. I am hoping that the distinguished sponsor of the amendment might give us enough of a clue in advance so that — Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. Could I ask to have the amendment read later?
Mr. LONG. Of course, I am just trying to save the time of the Senate. I will explain the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am willing to go that route, until I find it unsatisfactory.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator does not waive the reading, he may have it read later.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not insist that it be read now. I reserve the right to have it read later and will permit the Senator from Louisiana to proceed.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment can be read any time the Senator wants it read.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is satisfactory.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 18, strike out lines 5 through 11. On page 23, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(b) Refund of Excess Credit— Subsection (b) of section 6401 of such Code (relating to excessive credits) is amended
(1) by striking out "and 43 (relating to earned income credit) ," and inserting in lieu thereof "43 (relating to earned income credit), and 44C (relating to credit for educational expenses) ,", and
(2) by striking out "39 and 43" and inserting in lieu thereof "39, 43, and 44C".
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I wish to comply with the budget resolution. But, I do not want to do a grave injustice to some poor people, just because they do not happen to be well fixed financially. And we will do such an injustice, if we do not agree to this amendment.
Mr. President, the Senator pointed out what he thought was the right way to obtain a waiver of the budget rules. The Budget Committee has pointed out its procedures. We tried to follow that. At least we thought we did. We sent our proposal to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee sent it on to the Appropriations Committee, and the Appropriations Committee sent it back to the Budget Committee. The last I heard of it, the Budget Committee was not willing to grant a waiver.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a point of clarification?
Mr. LONG. That is my impression. Yes; I yield to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Budget Act requires certain provisions go to the Appropriations Committee. We did not arbitrarily refer it to the Appropriations Committee. The Budget Act provides that because it involved the spending of money or at least a budgetary cost. The Budget Committee exercised the responsibility with which it is charged under the Budget Act and so did the Appropriations Committee. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
Mr. LONG. Yes; I am not complaining about that. I did not say the Budget Committee did not do everything it is supposed to do and did not exercise its conscience. All I am saying is that we on the Finance Committee followed the procedure as we understood the procedure, we were asking for a waiver and did not receive it.
But I read, Mr. President, under the Budget Act, section 904(b) which is the provision from which I appeal because I am trying to do what is right for those who are not so fortunate:
Any provision of title 304 may be waived or suspended in the Senate by a majority vote of the Members voting, a quorum being present, or by unanimous consent of the Senate.
Obviously we would not obtain unanimous consent on this waiver. However, a quorum is here.
By majority vote, the Senate can waive section 303, which is the section that we have to request to waive.
So, Mr. President, so that not only rich and middle-income parents have the benefit of the tax credit, but so that lower-income parents may have it, also, it will be necessary to ask the Senate for a waiver.
Mr. President, the Senator from Maine said there were provisions in the bill that kept the poor from receiving as much benefit as some of us think they should out of this legislation. But, the cost estimates for this amendment show that these people would be helped. The fact is that only if they are getting a fellowship for a scholarship or Government grant or something of that sort, they cannot get the credit.
By adopting my amendment, the Senate would increase the cost of the bill only $45 million in fiscal 1979; $81 million in fiscal 1980; and $133 million in fiscal 1981. But this additional cost would help a lot of low-income people who could participate in this if the Senate wants to let them participate in it.
I hope that this is the proper way to act, Mr. President. I move that under section 904(b) the requirements of section 303 of the Budget Act be waived so that the amendment can be considered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PACKWOOD and Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose?
Mr. LONG. Yes; I yield for that purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask whether or not there has been a sufficient change in the amendment to make it in order at this point under the Senate rules, not under the Budget Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the precedents of the Senate once an amendment has been rejected or ruled out on a point of order it can not be re-offered unless it is substantially different.
Mr. MUSKIE. I make that point of order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for the point of order?
Mr. LONG. I yield for the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the ruling of the Chair that there is no substantial change in the amendment, therefore, the point of order is sustained.
Mr. LONG. Then I will make some more changes.
Mr. President, send it back to me and I will make some more changes.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 1660
(Purpose: To provide for the refunding of credit in excess of tax liability )
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I send to thedesk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) proposes unprinted amendment numbered 1660.
On page 18, strike out lines 5 through 11. On page 23, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(d) refund of excess credit.— subsection(b) of section 6401
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with except for the change that was penciled in. Please read the change on the second page.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
(1) by striking out "and 43 (relating to earned income credit) ," and inserting in lieu thereof "43 (relating to earned income credit) and 44C (relating to credit for educational expenses incurred after September 30, 1980) ;", and
(2) by striking out "39 and 43" and inserting in lieu thereof "39, 43, and 44C".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 18, strike out lines 5 through 11. On page 23, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(b) Refund of Excess Credit.— Subsection(b) of section 6401 of such Code (relating to excessive credits) is amended—
(1) by striking out "and 43 (relating to earned income credit)," and inserting in lieu thereof "43 (relating to earned income credit), and 44C (relating to credit for educational expenses incurred after September 30, 1980) ,", and
(2) by striking out "39 and 43" and inserting in lieu thereof "39, 43, and 44C".
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, under section 904(b) I move that section 303 of the budget rule be waived in order that the amendment might be considered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I still do not have a copy of this amendment. I do not know whether a substantial change has been made. We had a decisive vote on the point of order relating to the Budget Act under section 401 and section 303. I do not know how many times we have to go through this exercise, but a reading of the amendment such as we have had from the clerk is not a sufficient basis for me to make a judgment on whether or not we are being asked to vote on substantially the same amendment.
So I put the parliamentary inquiry to the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair at this point will state that this amendment is substantially different than the last amendment; therefore, it is in order under the Senate rules and precedents. As to the Budget Act, that is another matter.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I renew my motion under section 904(b) of the Budget Act, that the provision of section 303 of the Budget Act be waived in order that this amendment might be considered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will make the point of order, but before I do I think I owe the Senate some explanation of section 904.
In the first place, with respect to this amendment, I have not seen it. Only one Senator has seen it.
This subject of refundable credits was considered at length by the Finance Committee. It was included in legislation which was referred under the Budget Act from the Budget Committee to the Appropriations Committee. They had specific language before them dealing with this proposal. They acted on it. Both committees, overwhelmingly reported unfavorably on it. And the language was actually reported. Before those reports could get to the Senate floor so that the Senate could consider the waiver resolution which had been acted on unfavorably, the Finance Committee changed its legislative vehicle and did not include this language at all. I have no idea whether the language the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has just sent to the desk is the same language that came to the Budget Committee at one point or not. There is no basis for me to make a comparison. There is no basis whatsoever.
Now, what I have said goes to section 904.
As a member of the Government Operations Committee I spent most of a year writing the Budget Act, and spent the time in conference with the House of Representatives. I know that section 904 is intended to state only what is obvious, that the Senate can at any time suspend the Budget Act. So the question before us now is do we do that casually, do we do it when the Budget Act itself provides an orderly procedure for considering the issue in question?
There is an orderly procedure under the Budget Act to consider the very subject of this amendment. It was used by the Finance Committee.
It went through the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee reported it to the floor. That report is before the Senate. But the Committee on Finance backed off that because, following the procedure set down by the Budget Act, it did not give them the result they wanted. They wanted a favorable report, and because they did not get it they pulled back from that procedure and came back to the Senate without the refundable credit, which the chairman of the Committee on Finance now sends to the desk in language that no other Senator has seen, in language that may or may not be the same as that which the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee considered, and now the chairman of the Committee on Finance says we ought to get away from the specific procedure which was provided to handle just this kind of a problem, and waive the Budget Act altogether, which is what section 904 is.
It says that any time the Senate wants to it can suspend the Budget Act altogether and, of course, that is a statement of fact. It did not have to be written into section 904.
So now the chairman of the Committee on Finance puts it as boldly and as blatantly as he has wanted to for a long time. He does not like the Budget Act, and he wants to suspend the Budget Act so that he can do in his own way what the Budget Act makes possible for him to do in an orderly way.
So I oppose the motion and I hope the Senate will support my opposition.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I dare say, 90 percent of the Senators, and maybe more than 90 percent of the Senators, will find the same difficulty with which I am confronted. They will be confronted with all the parliamentary obstacles placed in the way of getting something to a vote, if they always have to go past the Budget Committee and the Budget Act.
But if you are right, Mr. President, it only takes 51 votes to sustain your position.
Why should we provide that everybody, except those who need it the most, will have the tax credits? Under the bill, the very rich will have it. I voted for that. But why deny the poor the credit, why deny the credit to the working poor, the least of them all, merely because of a technicality? Well, not if we have it within our power to do something about it.
I am no longer trying to overrule the Chair, I am not talking about that. I tried that. I was badly defeated. I accept the verdict and do not complain about that.
The ruling that the Chair made is not involved here. What is involved here is doing what is right. I find I have precedent for what I seek to do.
In April 1976, the Senate considered food stamp legislation which created new entitlement authority. Senator MUSKIE made a point of order against it under section 401 of the Budget Act. Senator TALMADGE then moved to suspend the provisions of the Budget Act under section 904(b) , the same section I am referring to here.
The motion was carried by a vote of 63-to-27. So you voted in favor of that waiver, Senators, at least two-thirds of us voted that way. We did it so that we could vote on a proposal dealing with food stamps. So the precedents are on my side this time.
I am just asking that we waive the Budget procedures for this worthy amendment. I am not asking to suspend the Budget Act as Senator TALMADGE did. I am just asking that we waive it enough so that we can offer one little amendment. I am not talking about a $1 billion amendment, but talking about an amendment that costs about $133 million the first year. By comparison, that is a small amount of money. I am asking that we waive the Budget Act provision so that the Senate can consider the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I might say further in support of the motion that when we waived the Budget Act during the food stamp consideration, the Senator from Maine had several comments, and I might quote what he said:
Under the Budget Act, a procedure open to him is a motion to suspend section 401 (b) with respect to this point of order, and I should support that motion, for the reasons that I have outlined here briefly .
But the Senate also has a procedural right under the act which enables it to say: "We are going to take it up on the floor of the Senate, notwithstanding the point of order." That is not a waiver of the procedures. It is an exercise of rights that the Senate has under the procedures.
If we had so structured the Budget Act as to absolutely prohibit Congress from considering any change in entitlement programs, including this bill by these months of delay, I doubt that Congress would have adopted the Budget Reform Act.
So when the Senator says that somehow the Budget Committee ought to deprive the Senate of that option, I say to the Senator in all respect that I do not think that it is what the Budget Act says. If we tried to impose that rigid a discipline in the process, the process would break down before the year was up.
So, Mr. President, what we are back to again is a whose-ox-is-gored argument. At the time that the Senator from Maine wanted to waive the Budget Act to consider an amendment by Senator Dole under the food stamp bill, he was in favor of waiving it under the procedures, as is allowed.
When he is opposed to this whole act, and he has made it clear from time immemorial — I will give him credit for consistency — that he is opposed to primary credits, secondary credits, college credits, vocational credits, part-time credits, graduate credits, and all other kinds of credits, he is opposed to it, so he does not want to follow the procedures of the Budget Act and allow us to vote on this, to do the very same thing that he endorsed doing on a bill making an issue of a waiver when he supported it.
It is simply a question of whether or not you agree with the issue of refundability and want to consider it. If you do not, that is fine. Leave it out. But we should not think that we are making a change in the Budget Act, that we are doing anything we have not done before or we are doing anything that the Senator from Maine has not supported before when the issue that he wanted to consider was one that he supported.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, a brief word on the substance of the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. With the elementary and secondary school provisions eliminated, the legislation before us is, of course, different legislation.
On the 1st of October 1980, the bill moves up to a different level altogether: there is at that point a potential refund tax credit of $500 at the college and university levels.
This amendment would take effect on October 1, 1981. We are talking about quite a substantial sum of money that persons will receive if we accept this, and will not receive if we fail to do so. This is, therefore, an important amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first of all, in response to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, I think my memory is pretty good, and I would not try to reconstruct the circumstances to which he speaks.
Mr. President, I am as sure as I am that I am standing here that those circumstances were no precedent for these. Here a route was deliberately not taken, under the Budget Act, by the Finance Committee, a route open to accomplish precisely what the Senator from Louisiana seeks to accomplish today, and he backed off; with what consequence? Leaving us in doubt as to precisely what legislative language we are considering, leaving us in doubt as to the cost, unless he chooses to presume that he ought to be the final authority on cost, and without the benefit of CBO's analysis of the cost in the light of the changes that have been made in the bill on the Senate floor.
The whole purpose of this process is to make sure the Senate has complete information on costs when it votes on legislation with these long-term cost implications. There is precedent for that.
As to what weight ought to be given to that precedent, I would not presume to try to suggest, without being able to review the record myself, before the tactic of the chairman of the Finance Committee is adopted. But I know if we were to approve what he has proposed, if we were to support his motion, we would set a precedent with much more significant, serious, and lasting implications for the viability of the budget process than the one to which the Senator from Oregon refers.
The second point I would make, that I made in my discussion of the Senator's first amendment — we are now considering his third one — his first one did not eliminate an offset provision, which means that students would lose any direct assistance they get from Federal programs, dollar for dollar, for the tax credit relief they get up to $250.
That was a weakness in the Senator's first amendment. He has not discussed it in connection with the second one, but if the weakness has not been corrected, then it still stands, and the amendment would not do the poor any good.
But the final point I make, Mr. President, is that the Senator justifies this because it is needed to correct an obvious injustice. Well, if the injustice is that obvious, why did the Finance Committee, in its deliberations, put this offset provision in? Earlier the Senator from Louisiana said, "Oh, well, that is within our jurisdiction, we can correct it."
I ask him, why did you not correct it when it was before you? My understanding is that the offset provision was put in deliberately, because there were those in the committee who felt that not to have it would mean that there would be people who would get benefits under both the tax credit option and the direct assistance, and they did not want to subject the bill to that criticism.
I say much of this on the basis of hearsay, because I do not have the benefit of the Finance Committee report, which was before us with respect to the original bill, which gave us the Finance Committee's arguments, which evaluated the bill for us so that we could have the benefit of their deliberations.
I have to act ad hoc, on the basis of the third amendment the Senator from Louisiana was able to put together this afternoon, without seeing the language, without being able to compare it with what we had before. I have the responsibility, whether the Senator from Louisiana likes it or not, and I am going to discharge that responsibility even if no one on this floor listens. I have the responsibility of giving the Senate the benefit of my best advice. This is the way I see it, and I would appreciate the Senate's support.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, the Senator has asked why we did not preserve the offset. I can tell the Senator why. It was to prevent double dipping. We offered the Department of HEW this provision, and they turned it down out of hand.
The matter is very simple. If somebody, in September, when starting school if students feel they are so desperately poor and are entitled to a grant, and they get it, and they could not go or they do not think they could get through school without the grant, this would let them take it, and then, when it comes time to sign the tax return in April, they can offset the amount they got as a grant against the credit, but they cannot take a grant and also take a tax credit if they paid tuition.
Conversely, if you think you can make it until April without a grant, if you take the tax credit you cannot also take the grant. It was designed to offer the students a choice, and to offset the cost of the bill, which the Finance Committee tried to do in a number of respects.
That was all this offset provision was. It had to do with preventing double dipping, and with the philosophy that I think the Finance Committee, almost to a man, shared: It endeavored to give the recipients a choice, in September, as to whether they wanted to go the grant route or the credit route. Pay your money and take your choice.
I think the reason we were turned down by the Department of HEW is that they did not want these two programs side by side, because I think I know what will happen. For most students going to school, and who are dependent on their parents, when they are faced with this situation, if the parent pays any tax at all, and they look at the BOEG form and what they have to reveal, they say, "To heck with it, I will pay it now and take it off the tax next April."
When this measure has been in effect 3 or 4 years, and HEW finds they prefer to go the tax credit route instead of the BOEG route, I believe HEW will be disappointed. But that is all that offset provision is about. It should not even be discussed in connection with this refundability and waiver of the Budget Act tonight.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I would hope the Senate by now understands what this is all about.
When we try to debate a tax credit so people can send their children to college, we are confronted with the argument, "Oh, that only helps those who are taxpayers; the poor will not benefit; you are going to help the rich people with this, and the poor could not enjoy it. How could you be so unfair?"
If we pass this bill without the amendment I am trying to offer, and if the President decides to veto the bill, as sure as I am talking to you, the President will come down on the fact that the bill would not benefit the poor. It will not be available to the poor because they do not pay any tax, or not enough tax to take advantage of the credit. We want to help the poor, but so far the poor are left out of this bill. When we tried to help the poor, we were confronted with every complexity that the Budget Committee can devise.
The Budget Committee is not against the poor; that committee is against this bill. Their chairman might deny it, but if he had his way he would deny the Senate the opportunity to make this bill applicable to all American children and their parents, rich or poor.
The chairman of the Budget Committee has made his position clear. He is going to work to defeat this bill however he can. He has talked about the cost of this amendment. But this amendment's cost is small in the totality of things. The Senator says he cannot rely on my estimates. Mr. President, all I have ever been able to rely on is the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, now known as the Joint Committee on Taxation. I always have regarded that staff as the most reliable group anywhere for estimating the impact of a revenue measure whether on the House side or the Senate side of the Hill. I stand by their estimate.
Mr. President, I have stricken fiscal years 1979 and 1980 from my amendment; it would not apply for the next couple of years. That is a substantial change in the amendment. So, parliamentary wise, we are within the rule. We are following precedent; we are seeking to invoke the same precedent that Mr. MUSKIE himself approved on the food stamp bill.
We are trying to address the merits of the issue. Why not just vote on the amendment? The technicalities are finally behind us. It is just a question of whether the Senate wants to let us vote on the amendment.
As I say, we tried to follow the procedures of the Budget Committee and did not have any luck there. We did the best we could. We now seek to invoke the precedent the Senator has recognized. We now ask for a vote on the amendment.
(Mr. DECONCINI assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will undertake to do my best to give the details on that precedent, and provide the Senate with as much information as I can. We would have been able to provide more if regular procedures had been followed.
As to that precedent — and it may have been a mistake — let us understand what it was. It had to do with the 1976 food stamp reform. My good friend from Kansas would probably remember that.
It involved another amendment which had been sanctioned by the budget resolution and taken into account by the budget resolution, and upon the adoption of the budget resolution by Congress, it effected the sanction.
So it is not outside the budget resolution.
The point of order was raised that the McGovern amendment had an immediate effective date rather than October 1. Under the budget resolution, section 401, any entitlement legislation which takes effect before October 1 or the next fiscal year, is not in order.
The fact is that because of the complexity of the food stamp bill, this judgment came to us on the basis of Senator DOLE's advice and Senator TALMADGE's advice. It was not possible to draft the McGovern amendment in another form to eliminate that technical objection.
We could not see at that point that any Budget Act purpose could be served by the point of order. The point of order would simply have obstructed a bill that had been assumed by the budget process.
That is the best and clearest reconstruction I can give of the circumstances at that time .
To me, those circumstances are far different from these.
With respect to the offset provision, the basic education opportunity grant program for the income group $5,000 to $10,000, the average grant, is $1,132. As I understand it, the amount of the grant is deducted from the prospective tax credit. As a result an average grant recipient from a family with an income below $10,000 would not get any benefit under the tax credit, since his BEOG's grant of $1,132 would greatly exceed the prospective $250 tax credit. The refundability provision cannot restore the tax credit to these students.
For people in the income group up to $10,000 there is no injustice being corrected here. The result I am told the offset provision would have would still obtain. So we are being asked to set a serious precedent under the Budget Act which does not accomplish what its sponsor proposes. That is the simple fact.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if this would not help the poor, why does it cost $81 million in fiscal year 1980, and $133 million in fiscal year 1981? Those are the budget estimates. They show what it would cost to help the poor.
If this amendment leaves anything to be desired, if there is anything in this bill or in this amendment that would deny some poor person a benefit to which he is entitled, we still have the right to correct it. I would be glad to support an amendment to do that or support further legislation to achieve a proper result. But, we will not have the opportunity to do anything about an obvious injustice in this bill affecting the poor unless my motion prevails, and we are offered the opportunity to vote on my amendment.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, one last clarifying point, so we understand who is saving money and who is not saving money. When we waived this provision on the food stamp bill 2 years ago, what happened is that the Agriculture Committee had worked extensively in trying to cut down food stamp expenditures. We had a program then estimated to cost about $6.5 billion.
The Agriculture Committee, with GEORGE MCGOVERN and BOB DOLE leading the fight, came up with reforms that would have cut it to about $6 billion but they would not have gone into effect until October 1 of that particular year. At the same time, the Department of Agriculture announced regulations to go into effect immediately which would have cut the annual cost of the food stamp program to $4.8 billion.
This Senate, I was one and most of the other Senators were on final passage, let alone the budget waiver, thought that cut, which was legal under the existing law, was too deep. So by virtue of waiving the rules we cost ourselves and this country about $1 billion during that year, money we thought justifiable was to be spent. But let no one think that by that waiver we saved money from what would have been cut from the food stamp program had we not waived it. We would have cut an additional $1.2 billion by administrative action. It is because our ox collectively was being gored. We did not want to cut it that far and we waived it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 31, nays 62, as follows:
So Mr. LONG's motion was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana is the pending question.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then, Mr. President, I raise a point of order as to the amendment under the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The waiver not having been granted, this amendment, like the predecessor, violates section 303 of the Budget Act. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
The Senator from Massachusetts.