March 22, 1979
Page 6061
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STEWART). The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, permit me to say I have discussed this matter with the Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) and I have discussed it with him more times than once today, and I discussed this precise language before I even offered the amendment.
I want to also say, Mr. President, that in discussions I have had with the Senator he has impressed me as being most fair, most reasonable, most considerate of any suggestions someone had to offer.The Senator has never impressed me for a moment as being ironclad or locked in on any particular word or phrase or language that appears in his amendment or in what we have here.
I have explained to him the problems as I saw them that would be involved, from this side of the aisle, in agreeing to the kind of thing that he would like to do, and I have tried to explain to him what some of the problems might be in reaching a meeting of the minds on doing something effective.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I want to do something effective about this. Yes, I yield to the Senator.
Mr. DOLE. I want to make clear, that while the Senator and I did discuss the debt limit matter earlier today, we did not discuss this specific amendment earlier today. About 3:30 p.m., we first saw this amendment. Maybe I misunderstood,but I was under the impression that I would be given an opportunity to meet with some Senators on this side about this substitute amendment. However, at 4 o'clock, I found the Senate was considering the substitute amendment language. Thus, there was no meeting of the minds on the substitute amendment. It was presented to us as a take it or leave it proposition.
I do not want to quarrel with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. All I am saying is that we were not part of the meeting that drew up the substitute language. I am not suggesting we have all the answers. Now, however, you have one Republican's support.
Mr. LONG. I would hope, Mr. President, that we would have a lot of Republican support. May I say, from my point of view, the genesis of what we have here was the Packwood amendment, to begin with. It was the Senator from Oregon (Mr. PACKWOOD) who suggested that the President ought to submit two budgets, that if he wants to submit one that is not going to be balanced, he ought to submit one that is balanced as well, explaining how he, the President, would go about balancing the budget if he were compelled to do so.
In the discussions we have had about this matter, the name of Senator PACKWOOD has been mentioned many times, that he had a very thoughtful suggestion and that we ought to consider asking the committee to report in the alternative, as well as even asking the President to report in the alternative.
This does not refer to an alternative budget, but implicit in it is that when the committee reports out a balanced budget, if it, for any reason, in its conscience feels there are reasons why we should not do that, it has the privilege to report out something different as well,and it would give us the option to vote for whichever one we want.
I would think, Mr. President, that what we are talking about here could lead to the type of situation where the Budget Committee on one side, the House side, would recommend that we balance the budget one way, and the Budget Committee on the Senate side would recommend that we balance the budget in a different way, and any Senator who might like some of the recommendations on the House side and some of the recommendations on the Senate side could put together his own package and suggest his own proposal as to how the budget should be balanced. In the end, we would have to decide, do we want a balanced budget or do we not want one?
I would think our committee would recommend a package of how we would do it if we had to balance it, and the Senate would recommend a package on how it would do it if it had to balance the budget.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I think there is great merit in the argument Senator MUSKIE is making, because there are two types of opinion in this Congress. One view says that once we are given the direction to balance the budget, we will do it right away. The other says that even though we have been given the direction to balance the budget, we will not do it.
I think it would be salutary for both views to consider the options and weigh the consequences.
I think it would be fair to ask the chairman of the committee, did you read the amendment Senator LONG has submitted for the Budget Committee, in its concurrent resolution next year, to submit a balanced budget?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have read it. I see no reason not to make it applicable in the future.
Mr. PACKWOOD. The reason why I think it should be nailed down more specifically, for the Budget Committee to say, as of April 15 this year, "We think this may be how the budget ought to be balanced," if there is no compulsion that next year the budget will be balanced, this could be a charade to avoid balancing the budget next year. I do not think there is any intention of doing that, but there is a feeling that that is something that might happen.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me say that what we would present is a full budget for 1980, a full budget for 1981, and a full budget for 1982 by April 15 of this year. Then, with respect to the 1981 balanced budget target, we would present a full budget for 1980 and a full budget for 1981, because the 1980 budget would be different in the two cases.
In other words, if you are moving for a 1982 balance, the 1980 budget can be relaxed or less austere than if you are moving for a 1981 balance.
So when you adopt this year's budget with either of these scenarios, you are making a commitment this year to a balanced budget in either 1982 or 1981. So this year's program will not be meaningless; it will be meaningful next year, if you have the same procedure.
I have no objection to writing it in here. We may find, after 1 year's experience, that that is a pretty rigid procedure, but, be that as it may, I have no objection to adopting the procedures suggested.
Mr. PACKWOOD. If the Senator will yield, I think it is very important that there be written into it a requirement that the first concurrent resolution next year be for a balanced budget. I think there is good prospect that we could do it by April 15 of this year for a year and a half away, stating what we think our revenues might be and what our expenditures might be. We know that if a year from now we are going to be able to present a concurrent resolution that is not balanced, there are some who sort of feel, "Well, they are not going to do it." I think we ought to put in here a requirement for a balanced budget, so that we will be working from a concurrent resolution, at the start, that is balanced.
Mr. MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, may I say to the Senator, not only will we have to do it this spring, but this fall, because otherwise, you know, we will not have completed what we began in the spring.
So I am perfectly agreeable that appropriate language be added.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LONG. One moment.
While we have been discussing this matter, I asked our staff to prepare language to cover the point made by the Senator from Oregon (Mr. PACKWOOD). I have the language prepared, and I would invite any Senator to take a look at it and see if it carries out what they had in mind. If someone finds something wrong with it, he can let me know, but in due course I plan to modify the amendment to do what the Senator suggests.
This accomplishes what I had in mind. I know how suspicious Senators can be; I have been that way myself sometimes. But I would certainly want, in good faith, everyone to understand that what we are trying to do here is have the Budget Committee recommend a balanced budget for fiscal year 1981 and a balanced budget for fiscal year 1982, and then to allow everybody to take a look at these budgets. If anyone has some doubts about it, talk about them. And there will be people outside Congress who will be concerned about it; let them all make themselves heard, and then if the people say, "No, you must not balance the budget," then by the time we get through with it, the concerned people, many of whom want a balanced budget now, when they look at what that will amount to, will say, "Oh, my goodness, that will break the country." Give them a chance to be heard; for all we know they might be right. If we are doing the wrong thing for the country, by the time we get through, they might come around to that point of view.
I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a point for the Senator from Maine. You said you would have to report out a balanced budget now, but you would not have to do that by this amendment, would you? It only says April 15.
Mr. MUSKIE. What we would have to do in September is to follow through on whatever decision the Senate and Congress would reach with respect to the choice presented to them in spring.
Mr. DECONCINI. But would Congress only make a choice on the 1980 budget and not be making a choice on the 1981 budget?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I want to make that clear. Let us take the 1981 target. We will report out with respect to that option in the 1980 budget and a full 1981 budget. Last year we put 5-year budget projections in the report. This year we will put 1980 and 1981, with a balance in 1981.
Mr. DECONCINI. Can the Senate in this Congress bind 1981 now?
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, it can pass any law now and repeal it next year.
Mr. DECONCINI. That is right. It could be repealed next year.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. DECONCINI. So this really has no binding effect except it is the sense of the Senate at the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. It has the same effect any of the pending amendments would have. Congress could change its mind about those next year.
Mr. DECONCINI. But the amendment of the Senator from Kansas, as I understand it, is a little different. It goes a little further than that.
Mr. MUSKIE. In what sense?
Mr. DECONCINI. Well, it set forth a surtax if the budget is not balanced.
Mr. MUSKIE. What is to prevent the Congress from repealing that?
Mr. DECONCINI. It would take an affirmative act to repeal that or we will have a surtax or a balanced budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. This would take an affirmative act.
Mr. DECONCINI. All we would have to do is just take the concurrent resolution and change it. It would be a lot easier than changing the surtax that would be placed on it.
Mr. MUSKIE. But we still have to have action by each House, agreement by each House.
Mr. DECONCINI. Would the Senator from Maine agree that the proposal where a surtax would be imposed, where a balanced budget did not exist, it would be much more difficult to overcome than the concurrent resolution as passed in 1979 for 1981?
Mr. MUSKIE. It depends upon the state of the economy. I would expect if the economy is deteriorating, if we have 11 percent unemployment, the climate in this Chamber could change drastically. Is the Senator saying that somehow we should find a way to tie the hands of future Congresses to act on such matters?
Mr. DECONCINI. No. This Senator is saying that what we should do is tell the American public we want a law today that is going to bind the Senate in 1980 and 1981 for a balanced budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. Irrespective of the consequences?
Mr. DECONCINI. At that time, certainly, this body could elect to change it. But we should not hold up this amendment and tell the public that this is balancing the budget for 1981, because it is not.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Senator that the Senator's surtax amendment is absolutely no guarantee, absolutely none, that we will have a balanced budget in 1981. As a matter of fact, if that surtax should hit at a point when we are in a recession, it could deepen the recession; it could reduce revenues — Herbert Hoover tried this in 1931; it could raise the social cost of income support programs; and we would end up with a worse deficit, not less.
Mr. DECONCINI. Right. And if the Senator would agree—
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator would want to tie our hands today so we could not meet that emergency.
Mr. DECONCINI. That is not correct. If the Senator will yield, the amendment No. 113 would permit overriding that by a two-thirds vote, which would indicate that it is so severe that it is a national emergency, and not just to continue spending with deficit dollars.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have a different view than the Senator about when we should deal with a national emergency. Should we deal with it when we first perceive it, or should we deal with it after the roof has fallen in?
For over 21 years I have seen the difficulty in this body in getting a two-thirds vote for anything. As a matter of fact, the cloture vote has been reduced from two-thirds to three-fifths because of the difficulty of getting a two-thirds vote. So what the Senator would put in the hands of a minority of one-third is the absolute veto power over economic policy with which it disagreed, a policy designed to meet the onslaught of a depression.
(Mr. EXON assumed the chair.)
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. If that is the kind of rigid, fixed, imprisoning kind of policy the Senator wants written into law, it is his privilege to support it. I do not. But when the Senator seeks to support his proposal by suggesting that this proposed alternative has no binding effect, then I challenge him.
It has a binding effect unless, when Senators vote for balanced budgets, they are just voting headlines back home. I would assume that when a Senator votes for this amendment for a balanced budget in 1981 that either he means it or he does not mean it. If all he is doing is finding a convenient occasion to say to the people back home, "I am for balanced budgets in 1981," a vote as to which he has mental reservations that he intends to implement a year from now, then I cannot see that any vote the Senate takes amounts to anything.
This proposal, if the Senators' words and votes mean anything, if it results in the approval of a 1981 balanced budget late in April when we act on the first concurrent resolution for 1980. I would assume that the Senators who vote for it mean what they are saying. If they mean what they are saying, they are going to have to vote for the same thing in September. If they mean what they are saying then, they are going to have to vote the same way the following April. And if they do not, they are going to be held accountable.
What the Senator wants, apparently, is to write this matter into the Constitution, or something like that, so that the one-third minority hereafter — whatever the exigencies of the country's economic environment, whatever national security needs may be, whatever economic conditions may be — would have an absolute veto power over economic policy.
I am not ready to tie up this Congress in those kinds of handcuffs. The Senator may be, and he has made his point very clear. That is his prerogative.
With respect to this description of this amendment, he is completely in error.
Mr. DECONCINI. It appears to me that the amendment at the desk now by the Senator from Louisiana does not bind anyone to anything. It only says the Budget Committee shall report by April 15 a fiscal year budget for 1980 and 1981.There is no vote; there is no affirmative action whatsoever. The original amendment of the Senator from Kansas, amendment 113, which is at the desk, has affirmative action now. That is what this commitment ought to be. As the Senator from Maine says, if we vote for this we should live by it and not be afraid to do just that.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator now reduces himself to 6 weeks.
The Senator from Arizona would like to vote before he knows the consequences of each budget on each budget function and on the economy, setting forth the effects on revenues, spending, employment, inflation and national security. He does not want to know those facts even though it only takes 6 weeks to get them before he votes.
This amendment requires that the Senate vote on the first budget resolution.
Mr. DECONCINI. Where does it require that the Senate vote?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Budget Reform Act requires that the first concurrent resolution be adopted by May 15.
Mr. DECONCINI. For 1981?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's amendment does not adopt a budget for 1981. This does not adopt a budget for 1981.
Mr. DECONCINI. That is my point.
Mr. MUSKIE. But it commits us, as of this moment, to a specific budget for 1981, or will in April, which we would then have to repudiate in order to vote differently a year later. Is the Senator not willing to put himself on the line after the consequences are understood? It is easy to be for a balanced budget when you do not know whether that would reduce social security benefits, whether it would reduce veterans' benefits, whether it would require a tax increase in order to avoid those two results, whether it would require a reduction in health benefits or education benefits.
It is easy to vote for a balanced budget, as the polls tell us. The polls tell us that 70 percent of the American people are for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget; but then, when you get down through the elements of the budget and ask the same voters, are you for taking a substantial cut in social security to get that balance, 70 percent say, "No." When you go through national defense, education, health, all the major elements of the budget, the American people say, "No." So they want both a balanced budget and all of these goodies, favorite programs and the Senator does not want them to know, when he votes for a balanced budget, that their favorite programs might be in danger.
What this amendment says is that by April — 6 weeks from now — we will then vote on whether we are for a balanced budget in 1981, after we know the consequences of that action. That kind of vote, taken 6 weeks from now, takes more courage than just a general vote for a balanced budget today, before we know what the consequences are going to be. That is what the game is all about.
Mr. DECONCINI. If the Senator will yield, that is not what this says. Nobody can kid himself in this body.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not in the habit of kidding myself.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, after the words, "April 15," on the second line, to insert the figure, "1979," and on the fourth line, at the end thereof, after the word "balance,", insert the words "and by April 15, 1980, a fiscal year budget for 1981, that shall be in balance, and by April 15, 1981, a fiscal year budget for 1982 that shall be in balance;".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his amendment.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified is as follows:
SEC. 5. Congress shall balance the Federal budget. Pursuant to this mandate, the Budget Committees shall report, by April 15, 1979, a Fiscal Year Budget for 1981 that shall be in balance and also a Fiscal Year Budget for 1982 that shall be in balance, and by April 15, 1980, a Fiscal Year Budget for 1981 that shall be in balance, and by April 15, 1981, a Fiscal Year Budget for 1982 that shall be in balance; and the Budget Committees shall show the consequences of each budget on each budget function and on the economy, setting forth the effects on revenues, spending, employment, inflation and national security.
Mr. LONG. Along the line of what the Senator from Maine is saying, I am amused to tell what happened last year on the tax bill. Some of our friends proceeded to vote for first one tax cut and next another, until, by the time they got through fattening up the tax cut, you could not comply with the budget resolution and take out the tax increase that was implicit in repealing the deduction for the State gasoline taxes. When the motion was made to strike that out of the bill, the Senator from Maine made the point of order that we could not do that, because at that point, the bill would violate the budget resolution. One would have thought that we were Jesse James and his brother, Frank, in here robbing the Senate of the United States of all its rights, because the budget resolution said that you could not consider an amendment that would break the budget.
After the Senators had enjoyed the fun of voting for all the billions of dollars of goodies to add to the bill, they then felt that they were being imposed upon, because some of the tax increases in the bill that made it possible to have all these tax cuts could not then be taken out.
Compare the furor that we heard from the Republican side of the aisle on that occasion, when Mr. HELMS made the motion, and when the Republican whip would have led one to believe that we were absolutely taking away the rights of all Americans, committing an act of tyranny to what will happen when we are going to have to vote for a balanced budget no matter whom we have to ask to pay increased taxes; that we are going to vote for a balanced budget no matter what poor people have to suffer, however many of them there are or however aged they may be, or how disastrous their plight may be; that we are going to vote for a balanced budget even though it means that the country cannot be defended and that any time the Communists want to take us over, all they have to do is come and take us with a minimum of resistance.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas proposes to say, "Fine." They want to lock it in by requiring a two-thirds majority to pass a budget. Even if the Senate, by a unanimous vote, wants to change it, and over on the House side, a majority wants to concur with what the Senate did, we could not have an unbalanced budget because there may be some timid souls over there who think that, in the minds of their constituents, balancing the budget is so sacred that they dare not do what the national interest requires. One-third on the other side could prevent the majority of both Houses from providing for the safety of the Nation or avoiding a mistake that would do grievous injury, that would make one want to cry, involving the fate of 20 or 30 million unfortunate Americans.
I should think, Mr. President, that if anybody wants to balance a budget, he would want somebody to bring him a concrete proposal he could vote for. I should hope, Mr. President, that as a result of this, we would see what the Budget Committee in good conscience would recommend to us; to say, well, if you are going to balance this budget, you are going to have to cut out a lot of things some people will not like. I have been telling some of the people now, "I am not going to vote to take away your burial allowance; I am not going to vote to take away that money to bury grandmother." But that is nothing compared to what we will have to do to balance the budget, if I hear the Senator from Maine, the chairman of the Budget Committee, correctly.
We will have to do some things that we are reluctant to do. It is a lot easier to say, "I am for balancing the budget; we are going to balance it unless a two-thirds majority says, do not balance it." Why not say, "We will balance it unless a unanimous vote agrees that we will not balance it"? It would involve similar logic.
This is a good faith proposal, that the committee would do what I hope it woulddo. I point out that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) is a member of that committee. I hope that he and others on that committee will, in good faith, tell us how they think this budget ought to be balanced and give us their best judgment as to how it can be done.
I hope I can support it. To set the stage, I shall hold the amendment in good faith. I want to vote for a balanced budget. I hope it can be done in a way that does not do grievous injury to anybody. If you want a balanced budget, show us how to balance it.
I yield to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Will we have an opportunity on our own to discuss the Senator's amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the ranking member of the Budget Committee (Mr. BELLMON) , who has had a chance to study this amendment, as a cosponsor. He wanted to indicate that the Budget Committee leadership is united behind this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. NUNN) be added.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. I am prepared to yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate on the balanced budget here today and I certainly have total respect for all those who have addressed the issue. But I would like to turn to the specific issue before us, the amendment that I proposed yesterday. As the distinguished Senator from Arizona just pointed out, this amendment provides that, beginning with fiscal year 1981, there may be no more statutory debt limit increases beyond the May 1, 1980, level unless the second concurrent resolution on the budget provides for a balanced or surplus budget or more than two-thirds of the House and Senate agree to a resolution which projects a deficit.
The amendment does not address the question whether there ought to be any additional increases in the debt limit for fiscal year 1980. It increases and extends the combined temporary and permanent debt at the same level provided in H.R. 2534, $830 billion, which will cover our debt needs through the end of fiscal year 1979.
It implements the so-called Byrd amendment, which the distinguished Senator from Virginia discussed earlier. The Byrd amendment, which passed last year, as part of Public Law 95-435, provided that Congress shall balance the budget by fiscal 1981.
The Dole-Armstrong amendment implements the administration's projection that we will have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1981. That projection is contained in the March 1979 OMB update of the President's budget. In that document, OMB projects a $3 million surplus for 1981.
The amendment would permit a deficit in the event of extraordinary circumstances.
The amendment also allows sufficient time for the administration and the Congress to plan for the difficult choices a balanced budget will impose.
The Dole-Armstrong amendment further permits debt limit increases after the budget is balanced. This is necessary because even with a balanced budget the public debt is still raised by off-budget items.
If we look at the House action on an amendment quite similar to the Dole-Armstrong amendment, I think one would find a very close vote on the matter. I did not look at the roll call vote, but I understand there was bipartisan support for the amendment.
I certainly wanted and still want to cooperate in trying to find some solution to a very difficult problem.
I assume we will have 50 votes on balanced budgets in this year. This is only the first.
Perhaps if the two-thirds vote is too restrictive, we could change it to three-fifths.
Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will offer a perfecting amendment to the Dole amendment which would change the levels to three-fifths. The perfecting amendment would also include the Long amendment, then we could have both amendments before us.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 51
(Subsequently printed amendment No. 117)
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send that amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the Dole amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows :
The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dots) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 51.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the amendment strike "two-thirds"and insert in lieu "three-fifths"and insert at the appropriate place the following:
SEC. 5. Congress shall balance the Federal budget. Pursuant to this mandate, the Budget Committees shall report, by April 15, a Fiscal Year Budget for 1981 that shall be in balance, and also a Fiscal Year Budget for 1982 that shall be in balance, and the Budget Committee shall show the consequences of each budget on each budget function and on the economy, setting forth the effects on revenues, spending, employment, inflation, and national security.
Mr. LONG. A point of order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. LONG. Would that not be an amendment in the third degree? My amendment is to the Dole amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas is an amendment to the text proposed to be stricken by the Senator's amendment and, as such, it is a second degree amendment, is in order, and takes precedence over the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would modify the last part of the perfecting amendment to conform with the modification of the Long amendment which was previously sent to the desk.
The modification would take care of the questions raised by the distinguished Senator from Oregon (Mr. PACKWOOD).
I think now the perfecting amendment addresses the issue raised by the distinguished Senator from Maine that a two-thirds requirement is too high. Now it has been changed to three-fifths.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows :
At the appropriate place in the amendment strike two-thirds and insert in lieu three-fifths, and insert at the appropriate place the following:
SEC. 5. Congress shall balance the Federal budget. Pursuant to this mandate, the Budget Committees shall report, by April 15, 1979 a Fiscal Year Budget for 1981 that shall be in balance, and also a Fiscal Year Budget for 1982 that shall be in balance, and by April 15, 1980, a Fiscal Year Budget for 1981 that shall be in balance, and by April 15, 1981, a Fiscal Year Budget for 1982 that shall be in balance and the Budget Committees shall show the consequences of each budget on each budget function and on the economy, setting forth the effects on revenues, spending, employment, inflation and national security.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the amendment as modified it addresses the concerns of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana because we have added the Long amendment, as modified, as part of the perfecting amendment.
It seems to me that we are now in a position to discuss the issues.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RIEGLE). Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just review one more time what the amendment would do in its present form.
It would implement the Byrd amendment passed last year. It satisfies the administration because it implements their projections for a balanced budget in fiscal year 1981. It would permit a deficit in the event of extraordinary circumstances, and allows time for Congress to make a determination.
It permits debt limit increases after the budget is balanced. I think we have satisfied some of the resistance by changing it from two-thirds to three-fifths vote.
If we can argue that we just cannot legislate this kind of amendment on the Senate floor, then I assume the same argument can be made against every constitutional amendment now pending in the Judiciary Committee.
Perhaps there are better ways to address the issue. The Senator from Kansas is willing to find the appropriate way to address the question of a balanced budget. The issue is not going to go away.
Most of the constitutional amendments pending before the Judiciary Committee require a balanced budget. Many of those would permit a deficit if we had a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.
I share the views expressed by the distinguished Senator from Maine, that a balanced budget is difficult to achieve.
It could be argued that these proposed constitutional amendments, like the Dole-Armstrong amendment, may in some way interfere with the budget process.
We have attempted to address a concern responsibly. I still hope, as I said to my distinguished chairman earlier today, there is some way to resolve this impasse in a bipartisan fashion. Maybe there will be a way to resolve it by Monday, or even later tonight.
Certainly, the Senator from Kansas — I cannot speak for the Senator from Colorado — is willing to compromise, my good faith is demonstrated by sending the three-fifths modification to the desk.
I think there is the broader question of whether we are ever going to have any meaningful vote on budget balancing amendments, whether they be statutory or constitutional.
There is a great deal of pressure being applied by State legislative bodies, and it is being applied on them by voters in their States to balance the budget. Every State in the Union except Connecticut and Vermont has adopted a balanced budget requirement.
I agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine, maybe the polls do not indicate whether we should move or not move on a constitutional amendment any more than we should move, perhaps, on direct election or any other measure.
We all could give the figures on how much Government spending has skyrocketed. I know the difficulties we are facing.
As I said to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana in the hallway today, we should be responsible. If we can be satisfled that the approach of the Senator from Louisiana is the most responsible approach, then the Senator from Kansas may accept it. There are those who feel very strongly the substitute is not the right approach. Perhaps we need to make further modifications either to the Armstrong-Dole amendment or to the Long amendment, or both.
The Senator from Kansas hopes we will have an opportunity — Republicans and Democrats — to sit down and try to construct some compromise.
If we are being told, in effect, "Take that amendment or nothing" then I suggest we just vote on the amendment now pending and find out what the sentiment may be, and then proceed to consideration of other amendments. But I am just speaking now for one Senator.