March 22, 1979
Page 6068
ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL 11 A.M. MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1979, AND FOR A RECESS DURING SESSION ON MONDAY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 11 a.m. Monday with the proviso that after the orders for the recognition of Senators, and no later than 12:30 p.m., the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 3:30 p.m. on Monday, the reason being Senators are being invited down to the White House for the signing ceremony with respect to the Mideast Treaty. Senators will be leaving at 1 o'clock, I believe, or thereabouts. The signing ceremony is at 2 o'clock. I assume it would be 3:30 before all Senators could be back on the floor. If we came in early we can at least get the orders for the recognition of Senators out of the way, we could get morning business out of the way, and I could provide further, if it meets with the manager's approval, that the resumption of the Senate on the pending bill will not reoccur until 3:30 p.m. on Monday.
Mr. DOLE. Reserving the right to object, I might just add I would be willing to add to that agreement that we have an up or down vote on my amendment at 4 o'clock.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I might be willing to gamble on Monday. We may have a vote in relation to the amendment by 4 o'clock, or maybe some other motion which may be made.
Mr. DOLE. I was hoping we might avoid that other motion.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to get this request so Senators will know that there will be no more votes today, that they can meet their airline reservations, and the Senate can proceed to debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from West Virginia?
Mr. DECONCINI. Reserving the right to object, and I do not believe I will object, I am not sure exactly whether I heard the unanimous consent request.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 11 a.m. Monday; that at no later than 12:30 p.m. on Monday the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 3:30 p.m. on Monday; that at the hour of 3:30 p.m. on Monday the Senate resume its considerationtion of the debt limit message.
Mr. DECONCINI. And there will be no more votes tonight?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. There will be no more roll call votes tonight.
Mr. DECONCINI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none and it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE.. Mr. President, I might just suggest, and again with reference to the perfecting amendment, I am very willing to enter into a time agreement on Monday, if we could have an up or down vote.It is not that I want to delay consideration of the debt limit increase. I know that starting about April 3 it has certain consequences we want to avoid.
I would suggest we may be able to work out some additional compromise between now and Monday at 4 o'clock. Certainly, we are prepared to work tomorrow and over the weekend. Failing that, the Senator from Kansas would be willing to vote on the amendment — not the entire amendment but the perfecting amendment — 30 minutes after we convene on Monday.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. LONG. As far as this Senator is concerned, Mr. President, he wants the Senate to work its will. I really do not anticipate that we are going to have any difficulty getting right to a vote.
Mr. DOLE. I do not either.
Mr. LONG. I think it would be just as well to leave every Senator with his own rights. I fully respect the rights of the Senator. So far as I am concerned, I am not aware of any Senator's desire to filibuster. I think we would do just as well if we try to protect the rights of all Senators. There may be some who might object or who might want to make some motion or offer some amendment of which I am totally unfamiliar. I think it would protect all if we leave it just the way it is. I would think we could settle this issue on Monday and go to the next issue.
Mr. DOLE. I appreciate the advice from my distinguished chairman. I think it is good advice. I want to assure the majority leader we have no intention of trying to delay on Monday, or whenever the vote may occur.
I am prepared not to have any more votes, but to suggest that perhaps between now and Monday we can address some of the reservations we have about the proposal presented by the distinguished chairman. Perhaps there may be room for compromise or there may not be.
I want to comment on one other point. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas said that they could change if mine were adopted by a majority vote. But it takes 60 votes to support cloture. I believe that those who supported my amendment, where we asked for a three-fifths vote to increase the debt, should be aware of that in the event there was an effort to change.
I am prepared to yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the distinguished Senator form Louisiana (Mr. LONG) has discussed the pending amendment and so has the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), and others.
On yesterday, I appointed an ad hoc committee to consider legislation that would represent a responsible approach to balancing the budget. We all want to balance the budget. I get many letters from back home asking "When are you going to balance the budget? When are you going to cut Federal spending? And when am I going to get my check?"
Some group will wire me to "balance the budget. Cut Federal spending." And within the next week or so I will find members of the same group in my office urging me to use my influence, which they think is immeasurable, limitless, as a matter of fact, to get this Federal agency or that Federal agency to approve an application for Federal funds for such-and-such a project in that community.
So, Mr. President, they want to have it both ways.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, recently one of the able mayors of the State of Louisiana was in my office. He said, "Please be considerate and tolerant of my city council. They sent you up two resolutions the same day. One of them was to say that Congress should not make any of these grants with strings and all that, but just give us our share of money in revenue sharing and not have any more grants-in-aid. Just give us our share of the money and let us spend it as we see fit. The other was a request to get us a $700,000 grant."
He said, "Please be tolerant of my people and understand that they have to play a little politics just like some of you people do, from time to time. Do not expect us always to be consistent, because that is not how it is with these fellows who have to run for office."
I think we should be, because our constituents one day find that they have their ox in the ditch and Congress must come to their aid and save the old family homestead, and the next day, they find that Congress did something for someone else along the same line, in which they did not share the benefit, so they write in, upbraiding us for being irresponsible and spending money on something that is not entirely necessary.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, to go on with my statement, Congress has been moving in this direction. Last year, the President projected a budget deficit of $60 billion in January. Congress, through its budget process, reduced that budget deficit from $60 billion to something like $39 billion, which was a $21 billion reduction in the deficit. So Congress has been moving in this direction, and it recognized the national mood when it did that.
We all want to continue in that direction. We want to balance the budget. But we want to approach this matter in a responsible way. It is easy to vote for an amendment that says, "Balance the budget; Congress must balance the budget this year." That is easy. But, Mr. President, when it comes to determining what areas will be cut, I have a feeling that Senators are going to hear from people back home, because if we have to make cuts, are we going to make them in defense? The President has pledged a 3-percent increase annually in the defense budget. He did this at the NATO summit, and the other NATO countries pledged that they would also increase their annual defense budget in real terms by 3 percent. So are we going to cut defense?
If not, what are we going to cut back? Are we going to cut out some of the social programs? We have a move on in this country for a constitutional amendment that will mandate a balanced budget annually. What that will do is remove from the Congress, if such an amendment is ever adopted, that fiscal tool which has been used by Franklin D. Roosevelt and all Presidents subsequent thereto from time to time, the budget. Deficit spending, call it whatever you may, it will remove that fiscal tool to deal with economic situations that cannot be foreseen in advance.
Congress has to have flexibility in enunciating and formulating fiscal policy and it has to use the budget — as a tool, an instrument. So there as a great wave around this country for a constitutional amendment.
They say, "Well, I balance the budget in my household. I cannot operate on an unbalanced budget in my household. Why cannot those people in Washington balance the budget?"
People in West Virginia say, "We have a constitutional provision that mandates West Virginia to balance its budget." That is true, I say to the distinguished Senator from Kansas. West Virginia has a surplus right now. I do not know what it is, 50 some million dollars, I suppose. A surplus.
West Virginia is mandated to balance its budget. But the Federal Government has many responsibilities that the States do not have. National defense is one of those responsibilities. The Federal Government has to provide for the national defense.
So, to those States the legislatures of which are asking Congress to balance the budget or are moving in the direction of a constitutional convention and moving in the direction of a constitutional amendment that would mandate a balanced Federal budget, I say, "Present your inventory of items that you would be willing for the Federal Government to reduce or eliminate. Tell us where you want to cut the Federal funding for your State."
Mr. President, that is what this amendment that was offered by Mr. LONG and other Senators attempts to achieve. It is a realistic approach. It mandates Congress to balance the budget. It requires the Budget Committee, by April 15 of this year, to report a balanced budget for 1981 and a balanced budget for 1982, together with the consequences of such balanced budget, so that Senators may see, and the people back home may see, what the consequences will be of a balanced budget in 1981 and what the consequences will be of a balanced budget in 1982. They will see whether veterans' programs are going to be cut; they will see whether education programs are going to be cut; they will see whether welfare programs are going to be cut; they will see whether national defense will be cut. Then they can make their choice.
But just blindly to vote for something and say, "Let us have a balanced budget," — no, unless two-thirds of both Houses or three-fifths, whatever it may be, may say otherwise.
Mr. President, the hue and cry we have heard for a balanced budget is going to be a volume of moans and groans when the people find out what this means. Let us vote for a balanced budget with our eyes open, knowing and saying where the cuts are going to be, where the reductions are going to be. If you want a balanced budget, let us understand whether we are going to have to cut social programs, whether we are going to have to cut defense programs or whatever. Let us understand where the cuts are going to have to be made. Let us make a decision on that. That is the responsible approach, Mr. President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are even two other alternatives. If, for example, a balanced budget forces us to cut too deeply into some very high priority programs like defense or income support programs, an alternative for balancing the budget might be to increase taxes. There is more than one way to balance a budget. In addition to reducing spending, we could increase taxes.
There is still another alternative. There are tax expenditures, which have been a very volatile and controversial subject on the floor of the Senate. We might balance the budget by eliminating some of those that are of great value to business groups or education groups or health groups. All f these consequences, of which there are many need to be examined, presented, and understood.
The majority leader is absolutely right in his analysis and debate. I could not do it better.
I compliment the majority leader on assembling this ad hoc group to put together this approach. Even this approach is a little restrictive, but I think we ought to get used to it. I think it is going to work out well. I hope that Senators read the majority leader's statement and understand that those of us who put it together intended to do what it says: to spell out the consequences, but to clearly point to the road of the balanced budget and give the Senate a chance to vote for it.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, and give our constituents a chance to see what is going to be reduced, what is going to have to be reduced, or what will be increased in order to achieve that goal of a balanced budget.
We are not buying a pig in a poke. We are going to buy a balanced budget with our eyes open.
It is for that reason, realizing that Senators all want the balanced budget, that I appointed the ad hoc committee and named Mr. MUSKIE as chairman of it, and Mr. LONG, chairman, of the Finance Committee — Mr. MUSKIE is chairman of the Budget Committee — Mr. MAGNUSON, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. CRANSTON, majority whip, Mr. HART, Mr. CHILES, who is also on the Budget Committee, Mr. NELSON, Mr. BENTSEN, who is chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. NUNN, who is on the Finance Committee, and that committee worked yesterday and today seeking a language that would represent a responsible, reasonable, realistic approach to this problem that concerns all of us.
We welcome bipartisan support of it and, as Mr. LONG indicated, during those meetings he referred to the amendment that had been offered by Mr. PACKWOOD, and it was the consensus of everyone there that we would like to have and hope to get Republican sponsors, and we have some.
So it should be a bipartisan approach. After all, the Democratic Party wants a balanced budget. The Republican Party wants a balanced budget. Neither party has a monopoly on the desire for a balanced budget. Both parties want it. So let it be a bipartisan effort; that is exactly what the amendment offered by Mr. LONG and others represents.
I want to compliment the members of the ad hoc committee. I hope that over the weekend Senators will study the amendment, and realize that it does represent a reasonable approach, because sooner or later they are going to meet this thing coming back. It is not just a question of voting for a balanced budget today, but sooner or later we are all going to have a showdown on the reductions that will have to be made in some areas to achieve a balanced budget.
With that in mind, I hope Senators will support the amendment and feel that it is a responsible answer to the concerns that are being expressed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point the language of the amendment (No. 50, as modified.)
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, 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 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. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no further need for the floor. I am going to yield it, for the moment.