March 22, 1979
Page 6058
EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT
The Senate continued with the consideration of H.R. 2534.
DEBT LIMIT DISCIPLINE
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the bill which is being debated today, to raise the Federal debt limit to $830 billion, has become an annual ritual which, in my view, the Senate has taken far too lightly in the past.
Debt limit legislation originates in the House of Representatives. The Senate is always presented with this bill at the last minute. If the Senate does not concur in the House's action to increase the debt ceiling, the Federal Government would be unable to function. It is a "must bill," a cliffhanger over a bottomless abyss.
Senator DOLE has offered an amendment to the debt limit bill this year which would inject a measure of discipline into this process. It would also reinforce congressional restraint in regard to future spending. The Dole amendment would freeze the debt ceiling at its new level, until Congress either achieves a balanced budget or approves of future deficits by a two-thirds vote.
The Federal deficit, Mr. President, is declining. Current estimates indicate that the deficit for the present fiscal year will be less than the $39 billion set by Congress, perhaps even down to half of the $66 billion deficit in the last year of the Ford administration. President Carter's budget for the coming year anticipates a deficit of less than $30 billion, and I believe that Congress should lower it further. Nevertheless, the urgency of balancing the budget is still not being taken seriously enough.
The Dole amendment will focus attention on deficit spending as we take up the appropriation bills later in the session. On this basis, I will vote for it.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 50
(Subsequently Printed Amendment No. 116)
(Purpose: Substitute for Dole Amendment No. 111)
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, on behalf of myself and Messrs. PACKWOOD, MAGNUSON, MUSKIE, ROBERT C. BYRD, CRANSTON, BUMPERS, HART, BENTSEN, STEWART, CHILES, and NELSON.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside?
Mr. LONG. This is an amendment to the amendment, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG), for himself and others; proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 50:
In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted by Amendment 111, insert 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 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. Mr. President, I share the desire of other Senators who have been discussing the proposal for a balanced budget that the budget should be balanced, and it is my hope that the budget will be and can be balanced for fiscal year 1981.
It is my understanding that Congress already has enacted a proposal which provides that we shall have a balanced budget for 1981. That was the amendment of Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR., which
was agreed to some time ago.
However, what I object to, and what I believe the majority on this side object to, is the proposal which would provide that in a situation in which, by virtue of war or by virtue of a depression, a recession, or economic conditions, it might be totally and wholly impractical and not in the national interest to have a balanced budget, we nevertheless would have no choice but to go ahead with it, even though it would clearly be wrong.
It reminds me of the old story they tell along the Mississippi River, about a big flood. The morning after the flood, a man looked out and saw a straw hat moving around on top of the water, and he said, "What's that?"
The lady said, "That's Grandpa."
He said, "Why is that?"
She said, "Grandpa said he was going to mow the grass today, come hell or high water."
[Laughter.]
Mr. President, I can recall when Gerald Ford, an honest and sincere man, was President of the United States and was committed to a balanced budget. I recall that his program to fight inflation played the major role in the fact that the Nation soon found itself in a deep recession that could have been disastrous. It could have led to a depression, perhaps of the depth that occurred during the Hoover administration.
When the economy began to decline precipitously, Mr. Ford called me in and said that he was going to have to ask for a big tax cut because, otherwise, what could happen to the economy from that point forward could be a disaster. I became persuaded that he was right about that. He asked me what I thought about it, and I said:
Mr. President, the worst thing you could do would be to do what Herbert Hoover did in 1929:
While the country was going into its worst depression in this century, when he should have been trying to put more money into circulation and save the people from the disaster that was occurring, the Government, instead, was trying to balance the budget by cutting spending and putting more and more people out of work and adding to the downward spiral. That helped bring about the disaster that put a great country on its knees for many years to come.
Mr. President, that economic mistake is the greatest disservice that was done to the Republican Party in this century. It meant that the people of this country were not willing to trust the Republicans with the executive branch of the Government from 1932 until 1952. That is a long time for a party to stay out of power, because the people felt that the Republicans did not appreciate the fact that there come times when the survival of families — the ability of a family to earn a living — is more important than balancing the budget.
So that if such conditions occur, we should not have it so that just one-third of the Senate or one-third of the House would have a veto over a matter that could mean the survival of the country.
So far as I am concerned, I would like to vote for a balanced budget. This is an amendment to bring that about.
The first order of business, if you want a balanced budget, is to call upon the Budget Committees to bring in a balanced budget. We cannot vote for a balanced budget if we do not have one in front of us. Someone should say: "Which item do you cut? Where do you cut? How do you make the reductions? How do you suggest we go about all this?" That responsibility, under the laws we have passed, is the responsibility of the Budget Committees, so we call upon the Budget Committees, as the first order of business, to submit to us a balanced budget.
We say, "Insofar as it might have some consequences that might be hard to handle, tell us what that would be, and we could take all that into account in voting on it."
Mr. President, to a considerable degree, this amendment was inspired by a suggestion by the Senator from Oregon (Mr. PACKWOOD). Mr. PACKWOOD has an amendment that says something to the effect that the President of the United States shall submit to us two budgets if he wants to recommend an unbalanced budget. If he wants to recommend a budget that is not in balance, he should also submit one that is in balance, so that we would have the choice and vote for the one he is recommending or vote for the one he says he would be recommending if he had to submit a balanced budget.
It was in large measure because I observed the logic of that approach that I thought we should say that they should submit a balanced budget. Then, if someone thinks we should not have a balanced budget, including those on the Budget Committee, they can make recommendations to the contrary. They could say that to do this would not be in the Nation's interest, that we should do something else.
I hope that those on the Budget Committee, who have the jurisdiction and the duty to bring us a recommendation, will bring us, in good faith, their recommendation of what they think a balanced budget should be, and we could work from there.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I appreciate the compliment of the Senator from Louisiana.
In reading the Senator's amendment, I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. The Senator does not mean that by April 15 of this year, the Budget Committee shall present a balanced budget for fiscal year 1981 and for fiscal year 1982?
Mr. LONG. That is what I do mean.
Mr. PACKWOOD. This year?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Then, is there anything binding on the Budget Committee, next year, when they present their concurrent resolution to April 15, 1980, for the fiscal year 1981 budget, that that budget be in balance?
Mr. LONG. It is my intention that they must recommend to us a balanced budget for fiscal years 1981 and 1982.
Mr. PACKWOOD. In the concurrent resolution, the first concurrent resolution that is presented to Congress, by April 15, 1980?
Mr. LONG. We want them to submit, by April 15 of this year, a balanced budget for 1981, as well as their recommendation for a balanced budget for 1982.
Mr. PACKWOOD. The Budget Committee, as I understand it, is planning to submit some outyear projections and outyear budget projections. However, the important part of the Senator's amendment, I thought, was that the Budget Committee, when it presented its concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1981, by April 15, 1980, would present a balanced budget.
That is a different thing from the Budget Committee by April 15 of this year presenting their outyear budget projection for fiscal year 1981.
What they present us on April 15 of this year is not what binds this Congress for fiscal year 1981. It is their suggestion.It is their hope. It is their prayer for what happens in 1981. But what binds this Congress in fiscal year 1981 is the first and then the second concurrent resolution presented in 1980. And if that is not what this resolution means, it is what I thought it meant and, if it is not what it means, then I have some misgivings about just asking the Budget Committee to present us a hope by April 15 of this year as to what we might do to balance the budget a year and a half hence.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Oregon that my intention is the same as his intention. I want the budget committee to recommend to us a balanced budget and one that we can vote for. I completely respect the right of that committee and anyone else and every member on it, just as I respect the right of every Senator to offer an amendment or offer a substitute, and I respect the right of everyone to offer an alternative to it, to say no, we should not have a balanced budget, we should do thus-and-so.
But my intention is, as the Senator's intention, to require that they submit a balanced budget to us so that we can act on a balanced budget.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Then I think perhaps the amendment should read this way, bearing in mind the Budget Committee now has the power to submit a balanced budget for 1982, but it is not binding. Perhaps the amendment should read:
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.
That is the concurrent resolution that they submit to us.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, before we vote on the amendment
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. In a moment.
Mr. DOLE. We may not do it today.
Mr. LONG. Before we vote on the amendment, unless the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has arrived on the scene prior to that time, I will suggest the absence of a quorum and explore his views to see if he agrees with me and if he agrees with the Senator from Oregon about this matter.
I say that, bemuse I have discussed this matter with the Senator from Oregon, with the Senator from Maine, as well as the Senator from West Virginia, and others.
Let me say that after I discussed this subject with the Senator from Oregon, I discussed it with the majority leader (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) , and he appointed on our side of the aisle an ad hoc committee to talk about this matter. That included Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. HART, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. STEWART, Mr. CHILES, Mr. NELSON, and Mr. NUNN.
And these Senators, discussing this matter, felt that we should have a balanced budget and we should have the opportunity to vote for the balanced budget and at the same time any Senator and the Budget Committee itself, if it wanted to, having reported out a balanced budget, could also report an alternative budget and say that they would urge that we vote for the alternative budget instead.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Was it the understanding of the Senator from Louisiana and the group to which he alluded that the budget the Budget Committee reports out is to be balanced? Will the concurrent resolution that they send out, and that will be the resolution from which we work, contain a balanced budget?
There is some very good language in here about the Budget Committee shall present what the effects will be on revenues, spending, employment, inflation, and national security of a balanced budget. At the same time the Budget Committee can send out an alternative unbalanced budget, and they can say, "Look, if you want to balance the budget that means cutting $8.5 billion from defense, $3 billion from social security, $2 billion from health, and $2.5 billion from education, but that will balance the budget." At least it will be the budget that we work from. It will be the concurrent resolution.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield?
Mr. LONG. I hope the Senator from Maine has heard enough of the debate to know what we are discussing here. I wish to let him state his view of this matter. Otherwise, he can reserve judgment and we will come back to him.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am ready, but the Senator from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) has been seeking recognition.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I have been seeking recognition.
Mr. MUSKIE. He is before me, and I have no objection to yielding.
Mr. LONG. Then I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon points out that this amendment, as it stands, is completely ineffective.
Can the Budget Committee or any other committee make a reasonable logical estimate today of the revenues and expenditures for fiscal 1981 and 1982?
Mr. PACKWOOD. Two and a half years.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Two and a half years hence? Why, the Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury Department cannot even make it on an annual basis. Yet, this would be asking them to look ahead 2½ years. It is just totally ineffective because what the Budget Committee submits this year dealing with the outyears would not even require a binding vote.
The other aspect of the proposal is this: I think we should understand what the law requires today. What is the law today? Here is what the law says:
Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts.
That is the law now. That became law on October 10, 1978.
That amendment was passed by the Senate by a vote of 53 to 28 on the 31st day of July 1978.
Then the Senate appointed conferees. Every conferee, except one, was opposed to that amendment and had voted against that amendment.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the House of Representatives. What did the House do?
It took a very unusual action. The House instructed its conferees to support in conference the Byrd amendment which had been passed by the Senate of the United States. So the Senate conferees, although opposed to the Byrd amendment, were locked in and the amendment was locked in.
Then when it went to the President of the United States he signed it on October 10, 1978. That is the law now. The basic part of this amendment which has been proposed is already the law.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Yes.
Mr. PACKWOOD. It is the law, but I was interested in the exchange that the Senator from Virginia had with Mr. McIntyre some time ago about whether or not the President was going to, indeed, submit a balanced budget or whether they were going to seek to amend or change the law.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I do not want to interrupt the Senator at that point but, if I may, I think they would need to wait a little longer, according to what Mr. McIntyre said. They would have to wait a little longer so they could get a little clearer picture as to what the revenues and expenditures would be, which emphasizes that they cannot even look ahead to the next 9 months when the fiscal 1981 budget will be submitted. It would be much more difficult, of course, to look ahead 30 months, as the new proposal would require.
Mr. PACKWOOD. It is interesting though, after the Senator's discussion with Mr. McIntyre, I made some inquiries as to how the administration regards the law. It says :
Your amendment is beginning with fiscal year 1981. The total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts.
That does not require the President to submit a balanced budget. He can submit a budget that is $40 billion in deficit.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. This pending proposal does not require the President to submit a balanced budget.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I agree. I do not think, however, that Senator LONG intended to do what I am afraid this does. I think he intended it for the Budget Committee — it does not do it.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I am just judging the Long proposal by what the legislation actually says.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Here is what we are up against if we adopt it as it is written. The President does not have to submit a balanced budget. All the law says is that we shall have one. That is up to Congress.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. That is right.
Mr. PACKWOOD. He can submit one which is $40 billion out of whack. It should be announced, and it should state, that it will require the President to submit an alternative balanced budget. But unless we change the date that the Senator from Louisiana suggests, we are right where the Senator from Virginia says. It is a pious thing. It is a hope, it is a message. It is something that the Budget Committee will recommend ahead of the fiscal year, in effect.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It is worse than being a hope and a pious thing. It would be misleading to Congress and to the country because there is no way that they can sit here today and work up a reliable budget for 21/2 years hence. This budget year is half over but the President is still submitting changes in key figures.
Mr. PACKWOOD. We can make the best estimate possible. I have just gone on the Budget Committee, and I think in fairness we ought to make the best estimate possible for 2, 3, or 5 years ahead. But, most important, if we change slightly the date in this amendment so that indeed it says, "The concurrent resolution that the Budget Committee presents to this Congress by April 15, 1980, for the budget for fiscal year 1981 shall be a balanced budget," that is a very important step.
Then if the Budget Committee wants to say the effects of that are terrible and cataclysmic and we are going to lose a war to the Russians or that social security is going to be cut, if we do, then that is a choice Congress can make, given those alternatives. But this amendment as written does not do that.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. You are quite right. It does not do that at all. As I say, the law today states — and let me read it once more, it is only 18 words
Beginning with fiscal year 1981 the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts.
That is the law today. The proposed new legislation is not stronger than that. So the proposed amendment by the Senator from Louisiana adds nothing to what is already present law yet it would displace a proposal by the Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) , which seeks to force some fiscal discipline on the Congress.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Yes.
Mr. DOLE. I concur with the Senator from Virginia. This is a hoax. It is supposed to tell the American people that Congress will balance the Federal budget.
There is a great demand by the American people that we balance the budget. However, there are some who might be fooled by this language. Congress can get off the hook. We can all put out a newsletter and quote this section as indicating that we are going to balance the Federal budget.
I might suggest there never were any Republicans contacted about trying to work out this compromise. We were told about it after the fact. It seems to this Senator that if we want to try to approach this in the right way we might be able to work out some amendment that has some substance. I certainly share the view expressed by the distinguished Senator from Virginia which is that this compromise does not do anything.
We could do this now. The Budget Committee can bring this over, right now. I know they have a very able staff. They have got the figures. They can make the projections. Why wait until April 15? We could do it tonight.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I do not have the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has been a member of the Budget Committee and has been through the markup sessions, which have not even begun. We have 20 Members today, including 10 new ones. To suggest to Senators that we could tonight produce—
Mr. DOLE. Well, by tomorrow.
Mr. MUSKIE (continuing) — A budget resolution for the Senate's consideration is as unrealistic as to suggest that I can fly around the moon.
Of course, we have able staff. But what the Senator is asking us to do, if you adopt this proposal, is something different from what we would be likely to do, insofar as I can try to predict with the behavior of 20 unpredictable members of the Budget Committee, is going to be different, and it is going to be hard to do in the time frame.
The Senator may not be aware, but we have modified the proxy rule in the Budget Committee, and that is going to create an attendance problem for the upcoming markup.
We have got to do all of this between April 1 and April 15. I am perfectly prepared to try, if that is the Senate's wish, and I think we can present by April 15, but not long before, a budget resolution which indicates what you have to do to achieve a balance by fiscal year 1982, and an alternative one — the phrase used by Senator PACKWOOD, as I understand it — which will show what we have to do to get a balance by 1981. The Senate will then be in position to vote on which of those it prefers.
Now, as I came into the Chamber, I understood Senator PACKWOOD to be raising the following questions: Would you not have the same procedure for next year? Certainly, we could have the same procedure next year. As a matter of fact, I think there is something to be gained by focusing the country's attention hopefully, but at least the Senate's attention, on the consequences of the two budget approaches, and there may even be three budget approaches.
I am for anything that contributes to a gradually stiffening discipline in the budget process. That is what I think the Senator from Oregon had in mind, and, I think, that is what the committee had in mind.
It is true, as Senator DOLE has suggested, that this sort of ad hoc group was developed on our side of the aisle. But as soon as we thought we had something that made sense, the next instinct of that group was to see if we could get some support on your side of the aisle. I wish that it had happened simultaneously, but it did not.
In any case, this is a product of several hours of concentrated attention, and I would commend it to my colleagues. I do not know whether it can sell, but I commend it as a sound approach to the problem. It is a commitment.
You cannot pass the 1981 first resolution this year, but you can adopt in principle a budget for 1980 that is consistent with a balanced budget in 1981 and commit yourself to some figures for 1981.
The Senate can then change its mind about it next year or economic conditions next year might by their nature change, but it would be a commitment insofar as you can make a commitment for the future.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.