April 24, 1979
Page 8416
ORDER FOR VOTE ON MR. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.’S AMENDMENT AT 5:15P.M. TODAY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I have cleared this request with the author of the amendment (Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) and the manager of the resolution (Mr. MUSKIE), and I believe it is agreeable with Mr. BELLMON, that a vote occur in relation to this amendment at 15 minutes after 5 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. Did the Senator from Wisconsin understand the majority leader to say that would be the final vote of today?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No; I said a vote in relation to the amendment by Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. would occur at 5:15 p.m. today.
Mr. NELSON. At the end of the day, does that mean the final vote?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No; it means a vote in connection with the Harry F. Byrd, Jr. amendment at 5:15 p.m. today.
Mr. NELSON. May I inquire is it anticipated that there will be any other roll call on amendments today following the 5:15 vote?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That I cannot answer. Perhaps the distinguished manager of the bill (Mr. MUSKIE) knows whether or not other Senators are prepared to call up amendments today.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say, Mr. Leader, there are a number of amendments, and I would like very much to take up at least one more if we could get a willing sponsor to come to the floor with his amendment.
There are many more amendments pending than we have dealt with today by far. In the morning at 9 there is a Lugar amendment scheduled, to be followed by a Roth amendment. Then there is a Metzenbaum amendment, a Schweiker amendment, a Domenici amendment, a Kennedy amendment, a Tower amendment, and then a possible Stennis amendment, I gather a Riegle amendment, and then an amendment of the distinguished majority leader.
That is going to be very difficult to get through all those amendments tomorrow, and I know at least the Stennis-Riegle amendments are going to be very controversial and probably take the full time, which would be 4 hours for those two if the full time were taken for those two amendments.
So really I would like to get at something like the Schweiker amendment or the Domenici- Armstrong amendment or the Kennedy amendment or the Tower amendment. Those would be, from my point of view, very desirable candidates for at least discussion.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would like to express that hope also. We are not going to have any sessions on Friday so as to accommodate committees in meeting the May 15 deadline. We have not been having votes on Monday evenings, in accordance with my promise to Senators that there will be no votes after somewhere between 6 and 6:30 p.m.
I have stated in my caucus that we can expect votes on Tuesday evenings and Wednesday evenings. But it has got to the point where we do not want to have any sessions on Friday, no sessions on Saturday, of course, and no votes on Monday evenings.
It is difficult to get a vote after 5:15 on Tuesday now. We would do well to complete this resolution tomorrow. It will be the 3d day. We have just been out for 10 days, or 11, or 12 days if you want to count Saturdays and Sundays. We have the Department of Education bill, we have the aviation noise abatement bill. We have time agreements on those measures. I would like to finish them this Thursday before we go out, but it is getting to the point where I do not know when the Senate is going to do its work. We have eliminated Fridays now for at least through April, and we have eliminated Monday evening, and it looks as if we are going to be forced to eliminate Tuesday evenings if Senators just say they are going and not coming back. So I do not know when we are going to do our work.
I hope we could have another amendment this evening. Tomorrow is going to be a long day. That leaves Thursday of this week to do the education bill and the aviation noise abatement bill. If we can have one more amendment and finish by 6:30 today — I assured the distinguished minority leader we would go out at 6:30 today, because there is an important event coming this evening, in which my friends across the aisle are especially interested, but I hope we could get one more amendment today.
So I would hope that we could finish one more amendment today. Having said.that, I think I have said more than enough.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I always find it interesting that after one has lagged for 3 or 4 days on a bill like this, suddenly enthusiasm for offering amendments and extended debate escalates on the next day, when everybody would like to finish reasonably early. I do not know whether there is something perverse about human nature that achieves that result, but we have had a great deal of time to kill yesterday and today.
I can remember what led to this resolution: the debt ceiling bill. There was no lack of interest in achieving a balanced budget, no lack of proposals and debate here. We have produced what the Senate overwhelmingly asked for at that time, and now no one wants to offer amendments or talk about it.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,to answer the Senator's question, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 5:15 p.m. in relation to the amendment by Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are Members on both sides of the aisle at the White House. Will they be able to get back by that time?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I told the White House we were doing business up here today, and having votes, and that I was not coming down to the White House today. The cloakrooms said they would call Members on both sides, and I presume they will. I think we have enough problems within our own institution here, in combination with the problems of our constituents, without people from the White House calling the Members from this Chamber to be down there at 4:30 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
Since the vote lasts for 15 minutes, they will have until 5:30 to get here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from West Virginia?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would hope we could have assistance from both cloakrooms in generating one other amendment, if possible, today, so that we could have a vote thereon, if possible, at 6:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. May we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from Virginia may
proceed.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, before discussing the amendment, the distinguished majority leader mentioned that perhaps Congress would do just as well not to do any business, or some words to that effect, since no one is around or so many are away or something like that.
That brings to mind that one of the finest Congressmen from the State of Virginia, Representative DAN DANIEL of the Fifth Congressional District, spent allof the Easter recess in his home district. He went to every county and city in the district, and he said he found the people very happy that Congress, this session, was passing very little legislation.
I hope this Congress will continue to pass very little legislation. I think the people want very little legislation.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the leadership and the Members of the Senate are very well aware of the mood of the country, but we do have to pass, by law, this concurrent budget resolution.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Oh, yes, I know that.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. There are measures involving expiring deadlines in connection with at least 60 programs, I suppose, and there are the regular appropriation bills that have to be passed or the departments will discontinue their functions, employees will not be paid, and the people of the United States will not be served.
So, while I agree with the Senator that there is a mood in this country, a mood in this Congress, and a mood in the Senate that reflect that same feeling, that we need to go a little bit more slowly, that we need to be more conservative, that we need to conduct our oversight function, there are some measures that have to be passed, and this is one.
What I am saying is that we in the Senate have a certain amount of work we have to do, and it is very difficult for the leadership if we are going to be out on Friday for committees to get their work done under the deadline set for them by the Congressional Budget Act. And they are doing it. The Washington Post and the Congressional Digest, among other publications, have noted that the committees are diligently at work.
We do have a certain amount of work that has to be done if this Government is to continue to function, and we cannot do it and also be off on Fridays, not have votes on Monday evenings, and quit at 5:15 on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and also have our non-legislative day holidays in which committees are working, and in which Senators get back to their constituencies and feel the pulse back there, which is an important legislative function.
This is not to say that Senators are not busy, but I hope Senators will get to the floor and call up their amendments, so we will not be wasting time here and having the manager and the ranking minority member have to wait for the calling up of amendments. They have done their work in committee; they are here managing the resolution, they are ready to defend the resolution and explain it, and Senators who have amendments ought to be here to call them up.
The Senator from Virginia is doing that, and I am grateful to him, and I thank him for yielding.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The able majority leader is doing an outstanding job, I feel, in the way he is programing the work of the Senate, and of course I concur fully that this is a measure that has to be passed — or has to be considered, not necessarily passed in this precise form, but it has to be passed in some form. I personally would change the measure a little bit, but it has to be passed in some form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. There are appropriation bills that have to be passed in some form, so I concur fully with the remarks just made by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. President, the pending amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 22 would require a reduction of $1 billion in foreign aid below the level recommended by the Budget Committee. It would require a reduction of $1 billion in budget authority and $200 million in outlays in function 150, namely, international affairs.
The cutback in budget authority for international affairs is intended to hold bilateral aid and contributions to multilateral development banks at least to current law levels, rather than indexing them for inflation.
Why should the Congress of the United States index foreign aid? Why should the Senate of the United States index appropriations to the international banking institutions? We do not even index the income taxes for the people of this country. We do not even give our own taxpayers the opportunity to benefit from indexing; why should we index appropriations to these international banks?
If we cut out the indexing, that would achieve one-half of the $1 billion cut. A further cut of $500,000 in budget authority also would be necessary, to be distributed within the function as the authorizing and Appropriations Committees see fit.
My personal view is that these further reductions would come partly from international programs and from further cuts in foreign aid. I have estimatedthat this reduction would result in a cut of $200 million in outlays for this function in 1980.
In my view, it is time, in this time of high inflation and the deficit in the current resolution provides for a $29 billion deficit, it is time that we take a more realistic view of the foreign assistance program. We are now providing foreign assistance to 101 countries scattered throughout the world.
I think the time has now come to take a more realistic view of our foreign aid commitments. I hope the Senate will support a reduction in this one item.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
Mr. President, as always this is a function that is easier to attack than it is to support politically. Yet, the fact is that we have obligations as the leader of the free world, as a major power interested in asserting our influence in the world, hopefully toward peaceful objectives.
We cannot ignore the fact that if we are to play that role it carries some budgetary costs. There is no way of doing it for nothing.
If we are concerned about conditions in the unstable parts of the globe, the developing countries, conditions that are being exploited by those who are greedy for power and seek to advance themselves, conditions created by backward and deprived people who do not have enough to eat or a decent place to live, if we are concerned about the power struggle that conditions of that kind stimulate and feel we have a responsibility to do something about it, we have to bear some of the cost of doing so. Thereis no free lunch there.
The total in this function is $12 billion — $12 billion out of a budget of $530 billion. I do not know what that figures out percentage-wise, but it is pretty low. I wish the staff would figure that out for me. It is amusing to me that in this day of electronics we cannot use hand calculators on the floor without getting specific permission from the Senate. We have that permission.
The staff tells me it is 2 percent of our total budget authority which is represented by the total international affairs function.
The major addition to this function over current law is about $400 million in outlays for the President's Middle East initiatives regarding Israel, Egypt, and Turkey. All of us took considerable satisfaction in the peace treaty. I heard Senators say it was worth the price. It is not even the price that the press advertised at the time. It is $300 million in this function in fiscal year 1980, and a total of $1.1 billion in outlays over the fiscal year 1979-81 period. Another increase over current law is $200 million to support the U.N. peace force in Lebanon, U.N. dues, and partial discretionary inflation for the Export-Import Bank, which we rely upon to stimulate exports, and for the State Department to help deal with inflated costs of operations overseas.
Are these reasonable costs? Is that $300 million in fiscal 1980 for the MiddleEast initiatives more than our country can bear? Is it unreasonable? And $100 million to support the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon and other U.N. operations — is that unreasonable?
Those are questions we have to ask, not simply as politicians who respond to the public clamor for cutting foreign aid,but as responsible Senators concerned with playing a responsible role in the field of foreign affairs.
I hear Senators constantly complaining that we are never consulted by the administration on foreign matters. Well, each year we are consulted with respect to the cost and yet we object because there is no constituency for international programs.
Mr. President, I would suggest that the people back home do not really know how small a part of the total budget this is. I hear constituents say, "Why don't you take my program out of foreign aid?" By the time you add them all up, they must have the notion that the foreign aid program is several hundred billion dollars. In fact, budget authority for all international programs is $12 billion. Of this amount, $4.5 billion is for development programs or "foreign aid."
In outlays, the actual dollars expended are 1 percent of the total budget.
So, Mr. President, this is not the great monster of unleashed spending that critics of the program would have us believe. It is a modest contribution to our world leadership role.
Senator BYRD's amendment would reduce the mission 1 targets to current law in budget authority, and $100 million below current law in outlays. Current law means what we now spend or are committed to without allowance for inflation not mandated by law. That reduction would reduce the amount assumed for the multilateral development banks by at least $400 million in budget authority.
In addition, the Byrd amendment would make an additional unspecified cut of $500 million in the budget authority and $100 million in outlays.
The Budget Committee's targets for mission 1, international development programs, were proposed by Senator CHILES, who certainly is conservative with respect to budget matters. He argued that the President's request for the multilateral development banks represented a commitment by the United States that are matched almost $3 to $1 by other donor nations. Half of the budget authority requested was for guarantee-like, callable capital which is not expected to result in outlays and which, in fact, has never resulted in outlays. It is simply a pledge of our credit to permit the multilateral banks to raise capital for development purposes.
The committee targets for mission 1, Mr. President, assumed that part of the President's request for the multilateral development banks will be deferred until fiscal year 1981. So we are not even keeping our commitments on time under this budget resolution.
The amount deferred would be about $600 million in budget authority and less than $100 million in outlays under the committee's assumptions. This is more than half of the arrearages of $1 billion which were requested but which were not enacted in fiscal 1979. The balance will not be enacted until after fiscal 1980 under this budget resolution. During markup, a majority of the committee voted against the two amendments which were similar to the Byrd amendment. The second one failed by a vote of 2 to 13.
I submit that the membership of the Budget Committee could best be described as conservative in tone. So the case for the committee recommendation was made by a responsible Senator, whohas been a member of the Budget Committee for these years, because he understands the importance of these commitments.
Mr. President, if we break these commitments, other nations, who have met theirs and met them on time, will take note of our action. Many Americans, including Members of Congress, have asked that we reduce contributions to the multilateral development banks. This is being accomplished by negotiating a lower U.S.share of new commitments and by deferring payments of our commitments. We have undertaken to reduce salaries of senior staff at the multilateral development banks. This action may stimulate a strike an the part of employees as a result, because Congress can, of course, only affect the salaries of a few of the American staffers.
In the Inter-American Development Bank we have a veto over low interest loans. If our contribution drops below a certain level, we lose that veto and the ability to influence those decisions.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to my good friend from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy.
I should like to reinforce a point which he made and which I think our good friend, the Senator from Virginia, for whom we have such an extraordinary regard, might find relevant.
Namely, the chairman of our committee described it as a conservative committee. He is not being extravagant; there is no hyperbole in that description, I, for one, assure you. May I say, there are many aspects of conservatism and many extraordinarily attractive, not the least of which is the notion that commitments made by the United States ought to be for the moneys that we have provided for the multilateral lending institutions here represent commitments made. It is altogether proper to review those commitments. It is entirely within the province of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Appropriations Committee to instruct the Department of State to renegotiate commitments, or to negotiate new commitments. But, when commitments have been made by the United States of America, we must keep them.
It would be most unfortunate to get in the habit of breaking commitments. That casts a shadow over the whole of our international activities, which are incomparably the largest and, in ways, the most generous of any nation in the world. Why jeopardize a reputation wholly deserved and dearly bought by acting in a way which we could not condone in others and do not, in fact, condone in ourselves?
This process is not the correct vehicle for reducing our commitments. The correct vehicle is instructions from the appropriate committees, followed by negotiations by the executive branch.
But, commitments having been made, the United States word must be good; it always has been, and it ought not, unintentionally, to be jeopardized in an effort to control what is, after all, not a very large expenditure. In the case of the banks, it is a revolving investment. This money is no more expended than is money put into a bank in the United States. It becomes capital of the bank, remains capital, and, in proportion to what we lend is repaid to us. I think the long experience of these banks is that the loans are good and the capital is maintained.
I respect the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I know that the amendment is put forth in good faith. One could not imagine anything but good faith coming from the Senator from Virginia. But it would have consequences, I think, that he would be one of the first to deplore, because they would not be characteristic of his own perfect rectitude in these matters.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from New York. I echo his assessment of the motivation of the Senator from Virginia. We have this disagreement every year and it has gotten to be a social occasion, almost.
In any case, I understand the view on this subject and the philosophy and I expect him to bring up the amendment and I expect to answer it. I do not know whether I can have any expectation about the vote, but in any case, it is well to air the issue and to have it discussed, and I hope we have discussed it as thoroughly as we can. I think the Senator shares my views.
I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I am not sure how the term "conservative" is defined. I think in our committee work, these categories get pretty well fuzzed up sometimes. But I suppose I more or less fit that characterization of being conservative.
This is a program where I think there are good conservative reasons to favor holding the committee's position. The fact is that the Senate Budget Committee did carefully examine this function and we have already cut the President's request by $1.8 billion. I know the Senator from Virginia is aware of that. We cut it by $1.8 billion in the budget authority and $900 million in outlays. So there has been a little conservative scalpel used in this area already.
At the same time, I believe there is good reason for the United States, as has already been said, to conduct itself in a responsible way in dealing with the multilateral national banks and other programs that these funds will support.
To me, it is unfortunate, when we talk about foreign aid and undertake to reduce it, that we aim cuts primarily at the multilateral development banks, because the participation by the United States in the operation of these banks is an effective way to promote our own free enterprise economic principles and to demonstrate how much more effective our economic system is than some of the other systems that are followed in other countries and which are sometimes—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired. The Senator from Virginia has 3 minutes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank my friend from Virginia.
I was saying I believe it is unfortunate when we do not support the multilateral development banks, because this gives us a chance to show how much better our economic system works than some of the systems of the centrally planned economies.
What I say to my friend from Virginia is that I believe the Senate Budget Committee tried to be fair and responsible in dealing with international development programs, and that we did not give these programs special treatment. Our position as a world power carries special responsibility to involve ourselves in many global interests, such as foreign aid, and these international development banks are among those. I support the committee position and will oppose the amendment.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired. The Senator from Virginia has time left.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I shall be glad to yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Just half a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the amendment by the Senator from Virginia is to come at 5:15, so the time will have to come off the time allotted to the manager of the bill.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Washington.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I am very interested in this debate. I have always voted to cut foreign aid and the Senator from New York makes a good point on commitments. I think the problem is that too many Secretaries of State run around the world making commitments. Then they come back and say, "Oh, we are committed." Sometimes, if they would only add, "We think this is a good idea and we are going to ask Congress, to try to get it over with Congress." But they do not do that.
I am going to vote against the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I am not surprised at that.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I think the committee did a good job, but I want to suggest that the Appropriations Committee will look at it.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. May I say to the Senator from Washington that I would have been greatly surprised if he had agreed with me?
Mr. MAGNUSON. This is only a ceiling and we shall take a good long look at it.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Yes, I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from Virginia is always very gracious, and he knows I will always speak in opposition to his amendment, and he knows I always do.
I have just been on a trip abroad. That was for business reasons in respect to IFI's. I can testify to one thing. That is, if we are to have any hope for correcting our balance of trade, it is going to be with the less developed countries.
There is no question about that, and the soundest lending to them is by the international financial institutions.
This is quite aside from the stabilization of the international monetary situation, which is the single greatest danger to our own solvency and that of the world.
Now, as to the LDC's and our sales to them, they are now our best customers of any and, as I say, the soundest lending for their development comes from these IFI's.
Furthermore, we are sure of contribution by others who can afford it.
If Japan will do more with Third World countries — and Senator CHURCH and I have just come from there — it will be only through the IFI's and increasing of their allocation.
For all those reasons, I think this is a sound investment in terms of business and American trade where we need it the most, where we have the greatest imbalance.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no time left, I am sorry to say.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, how much time do I have now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has about 31/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield to the Senator from Idaho a minute and a half.
Mr. CHURCH. I will only need a minute.
Mr. President, I concur wholeheartedly in what my colleague, the ranking member on the Republican side of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said. I think a cut of this size could be disastrous.
At the same time, I recognize that there are places in the foreign aid program where cuts can be made and will be made.
When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee addresses the authorization levels, I am sure some cuts will be made.When the Appropriations Committee reviews foreign aid for actual recommended appropriation levels, further cuts will be made.
I think that is the proper way to address this question.
For that reason, I hope the Senate will reject the pending amendment.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, for nearly 14 years I have heard thesame arguments made on behalf of foreign aid that I have heard today, nothing new.
One of these days the American people will demand that the Congress take a more realistic view of how many tax dollars this Congress is willing to keep throwing to foreign countries.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment, for this reason: there was a typing error in the preparation of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his amendment.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It does not have the figure or the intent, so I modify the amendment accordingly.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator will not proceed until the Senate is in order. The Senate is not in order.
Will Senators please converse in the cloakroom or outside of the Chamber? The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, the name of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) was inadvertently omitted as a cosponsor of the previous amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. RANDOLPH be made a cosponsor of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NUNN). Without objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we have been trying to get other amendments up pursuant to the instructions of the distinguished majority leader and have been unsuccessful at this point.
I ask if there are any sponsors of amendments within hearing distance who are willing to go to the block at this point? We are going to have a very busy day tomorrow. I think there are close to 30 or 40 amendments that are either pending or threatened, and that is more than 1 full day's work. If we can get started on it tonight it will be helpful.
We tried and apparently without success.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask, does the Senator have any sequence settled for tomorrow? I think I can get my amendment down here and lay it down tonight. I do not know that I would be prepared to use all of my time this evening because some of my cosponsors are not available to come down here. But I think I can get it, introduce it, lay it down, and begin debate.
Will that be helpful?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me before he answers that?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. I say to my friend from New Mexico that during the course of the day today we have been trying to negotiate for a sequence of amendments tomorrow. The majority leader, I believe, has attempted that as well. And we have amendments set tentatively for 9 in the morning. So there would be an interruption of the Senator's amendment if we do that unless we readjust that.
Mr. DOMENICI. What amendment is scheduled first in the morning?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is the amendment by Mr. LUGAR.
If the Senator from New Mexico wished to lay his amendment down and get some discussion out of the way this evening, it could, by order of the Senate, be clocked in behind the amendment by Mr. ROTH, which I believe Mr. ROTH is going to follow Mr. LUGAR tomorrow, if that will be agreeable.
Mr. DOMENICI. Do we know how much time the Lugar and Roth amendments each are going to require? Have they agreed on a time?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator. yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. I think the Lugar amendment is scheduled for the full statutory time.
Mr. MUSKIE. They asked for 2 hours each at this point. I gather Senator ROTH may be willing to reduce it when we get to it.
Mr. BAKER. I think Mr. ROTH will probably reduce his.
Mr. MUSKIE. So we have 4 hours from 9 o'clock committed to this time and that will be until somewhat after 1 o'clock.
Mr. DOMENICI. How long did the leader intend to go this evening?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I think we are going to be forced to stop this evening without voting on another amendment. We could go as long as the Senator would care to discuss his amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am certain my cosponsors would not want to go beyond the previously agreed upon 6:15 p.m. I think that was the time they wanted to go to an event this evening. Is that correct?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me, there is an event tonight in honor of one of our colleagues and a large number of us plan to attend. It is off the Hill. It is downtown. I hope we would not schedule any votes for later than 6 or 6:30 p.m., or thereabouts, if we can avoid it.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. There will be no votes scheduled for later than that time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am sending for my amendment and will lay it down tonight and agree to use until 6:15 p.m. on it, provided we can get an agreement here that my time will then again commence immediately after the disposition of the Lugar and Roth amendment and that
Mr. BAKER. Two amendments.
Mr. DOMENICI. Those two, yes. And then debate will ensue on mine and vote immediately thereafter. Is that satisfactory?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, that is satisfactory.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is very satisfactory.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will get it quickly.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. On the amendment by Mr. SCHWEIKER will it be possible for us to reduce that time, may I ask the distinguished Senator?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Reduce it from what?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Under the statutory language there are 2 hours on any amendment. Would it be possible to reduce that time on the Senator's amendment?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Yes. I think we can reduce that to an hour.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. One thing I wish to get is the sequence. Where do I find my amendment will be taken up tomorrow?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would it be agreeable to follow the disposition of theamendment by Mr. DOMENICI with the calling up of the amendment by Mr. SCHWEIKER?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Where is the Roth amendment? Is that ahead of that?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. The Roth amendment would be ahead of it. First would be the amendment by Mr. LUGAR, then Mr. ROTH, then Mr. DOMENICI, and then Mr. SCHWEIKER.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. That will be fine.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the time on the amendment by Mr. SCHWEIKER belimited to 1 hour rather than 2 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,has the order been entered for the amendment by Mr. ROTH to be called up upon the disposition of the amendment by Mr. LUGAR?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the amendment by Mr. ROTH, Mr. DOMENICI be recognized to call up his amendment. Upon the disposition of that amendment, that Mr. SCHWEIKER be recognized to call up his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE) is prepared to call up his amendment at 3 o'clock, and I think, if my addition respecting amendments is correct, the majority leader is close to 3 o'clock with what is on the schedule.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. We will not miss it by far.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why do we not put Senator RIEGLE down to follow?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well.
I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the amendment by Mr. SCHWEIKER that Mr. RIEGLE be recognized to call up his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. JOHN STENNIS may wish to call up his amendment. We ought to put those two amendments together.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. To follow the Riegle amendment.
Mr. CRANSTON. There is a Metzenbaum amendment we would like to get in line for tomorrow also for 1 hour.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield to me for a moment?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Utah (Mr. HATCH) in the Chamber, and I understand he has a number of amendments at the desk for printing. Would it be possible to get some estimate as to how many of those amendments — and I understand there are 20 — he might plan to call up and under what circumstances, and also whether we might have a shorter time limitation than the 2 hours?
Mr. HATCH. I would certainly agree to a shorter time period. I would hope that we will not have to call up more than five but, of course — why do we not set it down for an hour, but I would endeavor to have it a half-hour equally divided. I know the distinguished chairman and I will agree, and I will try to keep it there.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I think that is very reasonable on the part of the distinguished Senator from Utah, and, if he has no objection, I will ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation on each of his five amendments of 1 hour. If he wishes to cut it to less, he can, of course, do that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. We are agreeable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, following the amendment by Mr. RIEGLE, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. STENNIS be recognized to call up his amendment. Then following Mr. STENNIS.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRANSTON. Can you get Mr. METZENBAUM in there?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. METZENBAUM be recognized then to call up his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that Mr. KENNEDY then be recognized to call up his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield to me?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. I understand there is some possibility that the Domenici-Armstrong amendment might be further reduced from the statutory time, and I see both the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from New Mexico on the floor, and I wonder if we could inquire about that possibility?
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say to my distinguished leader that I had agreed a few moments ago to lay our amendment down. It is a comprehensive type of amendment. Both Senators MUSKIE and BELLMON know what it is in that it was offered as a package during the budget debate. It is not ready because it is technically a bit difficult, so I would very much want to expedite matters but I cannot lay it down. If I can offer some assistance here, I would agree on our side that we would just take no more than 1 hour for the presentation of our amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would say it would not take more than a half-hour.
Mr. DOMENICI. We would take an hour on our side, and let them agree what they would want in rebuttal, and we will have something. Is that satisfactory?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would pick up the half-hour we will lose today.-
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that on the amendment of Mr. DOMENICI there be a 11/2 hour time limitation with Mr. DOMENICI controlling 1 hour and Mr. MUSKIE controlling one-half hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,that seems to be about as far as we can go today.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield to me for just a moment, I am now advised that Senator TOWER is willing to schedule his amendment for immediately following the Stennis amendment; if that is possible.
I understand we have already entered an order that would preclude that at the moment, so I will withdraw the suggestion, and I will contact Senator TOWER and see if we can arrange for a different sequence and, possibly, a reduction of time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well. I thank the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. President, we have made considerable progress in reducing the number of amendments and the time on such amendments, so I believe that starting at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning we stand a fair chance of completing action tomorrow evening, but it will be a late evening. That would only leave us one day this week on which to complete action on the Department of Education bill and the aircraft noise abatement bill.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BELLMON. I wonder if it would be possible for the edification of all of us if the majority leader could repeat the sequence of the calling up of the amendments so that we will be able to get our plans laid?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. I will ask the Chair to state the amendments that we have ordered for tomorrow, the identity of the authors and the sequence in which they will be called up, and the time limitation on each.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield to me before the Chair replies so that we can include the Tower amendment in the list that the Chair is about to read to us? Senator TOWER is willing, as I understand it, to follow in the sequence following the Kennedy amendment. Is that the last one on the list?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. And accept an hour's time limitation.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well, Mr.President. I make that request that there be a 1-hour time limitation on the amendment by Mr. TOWER, and that it follow in sequence the amendment by Mr. KENNEDY which, I believe, up to this point was the last one ordered, and I thank the distinguished minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The first amendment tomorrow is to be proposed by the Senator from Indiana (Mr. LUGAR) with the statutory time of 2 hours; to be followed by an amendment of the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) with the statutory time; to be followed by an amendment of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) on which he is to have 1 hour and the Senator from Maine one-half hour; then 1 hour equally divided on the amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER); then an amendment by Mr. RIEGLE from Michigan with the statutory time; followed by an amendment by the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) with the statutory time; followed by an amendment by Mr. METZENBAUM from Ohio with the statutory time
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, that time was reduced to 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct. The time on the amendment of Senator METZENBAUM is reduced to 1 hour.
Then there will be an amendment by Mr. KENNEDY from Massachusetts with the statutory time; followed by an amendment by the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) of 1 hour's time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. There may be a shift in sequence for the Metzenbaum amendment. I would like to hold out the possibility that that might follow the Riegle amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Just to make that a matter of record. Since the Senators are not here, I hesitate to formally request that change, but that would accommodate several of the parties tomorrow.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well. I am sure, Mr. President, that the distinguished manager of the resolution (Mr. MUSKIE) and the distinguished ranking minority member (Mr. BELLMON) will conserve their time to the very best of their ability, and, based upon the circumstances, try to govern the time so that it may be possible for some of the time to be yielded back — some or most of it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I hope we will, of course. I would hope that the other Senators would play this game as though we were in the last 2 minutes in a basketball game, and we could sort of condense ourarguments and move forward.
I expect some of these Members assigned statutory time may find it possible tomorrow, as we feel the pressure, to reduce that time, and I would hope Senators would consider that early in the day.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. So that, if we can complete the work tomorrow night, we may do so.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I take it the majority leader agrees with me in the interpretation that the sequence and order in time limitations for the several amendments that we have just completed in no way precludes other amendments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BAKER. It is my understanding, for instance, that the distinguished assistant Republican leader has an amendment that has not yet been placed at the desk for printing, and we have not yet scheduled the amendments of the distinguished Senator from Utah (Mr. HATCH)
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BAKER. I understand now that the Senator from Utah might like to include the scheduling of his amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thought I was in the sequence, but apparently I misunderstood what the Senator said.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would the Senator be agreeable to ordering his amendments to follow Mr. Tower's?
Mr. HATCH. Is that at the end of the sequence?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is the end of the list.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my amendments probably will be withdrawn following a colloquy with the chairman. We have had a previous discussion on some of them already, but I just want to make certain that we have an opportunity for a colloquy.
Mr. MUSKIE. We will try to find time for that.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the amendment by Mr.TOWER, the Senator from Utah (Mr. HATCH) be recognized to call up his five amendments in sequence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Could we now order a 48-hour day for tomorrow?
Mr. BAKER. I think we have already.
Mr. DOMENICI. Perhaps we could do that by unanimous consent.
Mr. President, are the managers through with management type work?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Does the Senator have some morning business?
Mr. DOMENICI. I was going to ask the Senator from Maine if he would yield for a little dialog with me, for 2 minutes, on the bill, just to ask a question and make an observation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Very well.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask the Senator from Maine if he is bothered by a part of this process that is now beginning to bother me. It has taken 5 years for it to happen, but this year it became pronounced, and it disturbs me. The President comes forth with a budget based on a set of economic premises, we are at liberty to choose our own premises, based on evidence and our deliberations, and the House is at liberty to choose its own economic assumptions.
As it turns out, we have three sets of economic assumptions: the President has one, the Senate uses the CBO figures and the House has its own.
It seems to me that the process of going to conference might be much more rational if we took the budget in two pieces, and had just a very short session of fact finding and set our economic assumptions for the ensuing year, upon which we were going to base our first resolution, let the House do likewise, and have a kind of mini-conference to agree on that, and then proceed to set our functional code.
Maybe that does not make sense. Is there something that does not follow in that sequence, that I am not aware of, I ask the chairman?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I hesitate to answer what is obviously a thoughtful question that the Senator has spent some time thinking about with an off-the-top-of-my-head response. The differing views of the state of the economy in the future are implicit rather than explicit in the budget. We have to teal with the numbers in the budget as they are, not as they might be if either party to the assumptions happened to be wrong.
So what we arrive at, at the end of the line, are budget numbers — and they are not that far apart as between us and the House of Representatives — budget numbers that reflect a rough consensus of the Congress in our view of the economy ahead, not a precise one. But we still have to agree on budget numbers, whatever our differences on the economic future.
Mr. DOMENICI. I only raised it because I was not talking about, necessarily, agreeing with the President, but rather the two institutions of Congress.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is what I was addressing myself to also.
Mr. DOMENICI. It seems to me we go to conference with disparities to be resolved, and in a number of the functions, aside from budgetary programmatic disparities, there are large disparities created by the economic assumptions which make our conference more immediately programmatic — "What do you want in food stamps?" — but if we have 7 percent unemployment and they have 5 percent, then we have to resolve a function with differing economic assumptions. I just thought maybe we ought to agree on that first.
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot conceive of a way to do what the Senator is talking about with greater precision than it is now done.
But in any case, I think what would eventually happen, by accommodating a majority of the 100 Members in this body and a majority of the 435 in the other, by agreeing on the budget numbers, we in effect have implemented a rough consensus on what the economic picture is likely to be.
In any case, as the Senator knows, I have stated that I have never heard of an economist who was totally correct in his last year's projection, and I cannot imagine that economists will do any better this year; I believe the rough consensus is as good as any.
Mr. DOMENICI. At any rate, it will not really work?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think not.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think, may I say, that our work is finished for the day. We have an order, I think.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.