April 24, 1979
Page 8396
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the majority leader, not only for his statement of commendation today but also for his unswerving support of the budget process from the time it was begun, when he was majority whip, and later as majority leader. Without that kind of support constantly stated by him on the floor — with the unnecessarily flattering remarks made about me — we could not have succeeded. I thank him very much.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
The remarks were not flattering, and they were not unnecessarily flattering. They were sound and they were factual. Without the kind of discipline and hard work and dedication that has been shown consistently by Mr. MUSKIE and Mr. BELLMON, the budget process long ago would have fallen into disrepute.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I join in expressing appreciation to the distinguished majority leader for the comments he has made.
I agree that the majority leader's support of the process has been absolutely vital, and I am sure it will continue in the future, as is necessary to make the process endure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. David Morse, a member of the staff of Senator JAVITS, have the privilege of the floor during the debate and votes on the budget resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is awaiting the arrival of Senators who will call up amendments.
Mr. DURKIN has an amendment which I have been told he was ready to call up. Mr. McGOVERN has an amendment. Mr. METZENBAUM has an amendment. There are amendments on the other side of the aisle to be called up, I am sure.
I hope that the offices of Senators who have amendments will notify them that the leadership is awaiting patiently, and the leadership includes the manager and the ranking minority manager.
We are watching all doors of the Chamber with great interest, anticipation, and some degree of hope. [Laughter.]
Mr. MUSKIE. And frustration.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. And not a little frustration.
We hope and expect at any moment the doors to burst open and Senators to rush in with their amendments in hand.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, either my eyesight is not better than that of the majority leader or there is no one in the Chamber who wishes to call up an amendment, since he has issued his clarion call to sponsors of amendments.
I emphasize that some controversial amendments are pending, and they will be time consuming when they are brought up. They are not going to be disposed of in a matter of a few minutes. They could take considerable time.
Unless we get some amendments out of the way, we are likely to find ourselves crowded tomorrow and the next day and perhaps even Friday, in order to complete this resolution this week — and that we must do, if we are to be ready for a conference with the House and final disposition of the budget by May 15.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, we have been spinning our wheels, more or less, for 45 minutes now.
I see in the distance some dust upon yonder plain. [Laughter.]
It appears that a steed is fast approaching with a Senator riding thereon.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I suppose we could move final passage.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, we could.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one additional unanimous consent request?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. It will be the last.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; while I reach down and take the hilt from my broken sword.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Chuck Trabandt of the Energy Committee staff be granted floor privileges during debates on this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, that may have been a mirage that I saw yonder. I am constrained to ask for a live quorum to get Senators to come to the Chamber.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant 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.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the prayers of a righteous man availeth much. An amendment is about to be offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. DURKIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I shall be brief.
I thank the majority leader for his indulgence and I also thank the senior Senator from Maine and the Senator from Oklahoma for their patience and their indulgence.
School is out in New Hampshire this week, and I think we have a substantial proportion of the school population down here today witnessing their Government in action.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I am sorry. I did not mean to interrupt the Senator in the middle of a sentence. I understood him to say he would be willing to reduce the time on the amendment. May we do that? Could we reduce it to 1 hour?
Mr. DURKIN. If it expedites things, we can reduce it to no more than 15 minutes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that time on the pending amendment by Mr. DURKIN be reduced to 20 minutes to be equally divided in accordance with the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURKIN. Fine.
Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the majority leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Bob Miller, Harris Miller, and Dan Deudney of my staff have floor privileges during consideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURKIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the reason I rise to offer this amendment is that according to figures from the Budget Office notwithstanding the fact that—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator plan to offer his amendment at this time?
Mr. DURKIN. Yes, in a few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from New Hampshire?
Mr. DURKIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURKIN. Could I get it myself?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator introduced an amendment, has he not?
Mr. DURKIN. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. When the Senator introduces his amendment he will get time of 2 hours under the agreement, which has been reduced to 15 minutes.
Mr. DURKIN. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Or is it 20 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has been reduced to 20 minutes, as I understand it, by the unanimous consent request. It does not begin to run until the Senator offers his amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. What is the Senator's wish?
Mr. DURKIN. The Senator wishes 5 minutes, although I am not going to offer my amendment formally. I think it would be a waste to offer it and then ask unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.
Mr. DURKIN. Five minutes would be enough.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to.
Mr. DURKIN. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, my concern is that given the action of the President to decontrol oil — and I might add parenthetically that decontrol will result in obscene profits that are even larger than the profits the oil companies are now recording, even larger than the first quarter profits that Exxon reported yesterday with an increase of 37 percent over the profits of the previous year's first quarter — even without the windfall profits tax there will be substantial additional revenue coming to the Treasury by virtue of the existing Federal taxes on the oil industry. I was going to offer this amendment to increase the budget level for the energy function so that we could dedicate this extra revenue to alternative energy sources. Developing alternative energy is very, very important not only in my area of the country, but in many areas of the country as well.
I do not think there is any doubt that New England has suffered more over the last 15 years by virtue of Federal energy policy than any other area of the country. We have all heard it. When oil was $1.25 a barrel, or 98 cents a barrel, OPEC oil could not be purchased by the people in New England because of the then-existing Federal energy policy. We had to pay more for domestic oil. Now the situation is reversed. This discrimination against my area of the country has gone on for altogether too long.
But after consulting with a number of my colleagues, I am of the opinion that this is the wrong time to do the right thing, and that there is a right time and a right way to do the right thing. So at this time, in light of the discussions with my colleagues and other members of the Energy Committee who are very, very interested in the budget levels for energy functions, I think it would be more advantageous to those of us interested in alternative energy to pursue this approach at some future date. In light of that, Mr. President, I thank the distinguished floor manager and the ranking Republican member, Senator BELLMON, for their time, patience, and consideration, but I will not offer the amendment at this time, and I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and let the floor manager move on to other amendments.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from New Hampshire for his action. It will save time and I understand his reasons for not offering his amendment.
I simply say, for the purposes of making the record, that insofar as the Treasury will benefit from increased taxes due to decontrol, those revenues have already been assumed and allocated to spending programs in the recommended budget. With respect to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Senate has not had an opportunity to consider or act on any specific proposal. I understand there are several points of view with respect to what form that tax should take and how the proceeds should be used, and the President's program, I understand, is coming up later this week.
So the Budget Committee did not presume to deal with that issue. It was believed that this issue would emerge more clearly in the weeks between now and the second budget resolution, at which time we would have a better picture of what form the windfall profits tax actually might take. It would have been ill-advised for us to assume the passage of any particular form of windfall profits tax or to assume how, if a new tax were enacted, the proceeds would be distributed.
So the budget does not touch increased taxes from a possible windfall profits tax.It touches only that part of increased taxes that are attributable to oil decontrol under current law.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. DURKIN. Without any additional taxes does the Senator have an opinion as to what additional revenue will accrue to the Treasury?
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator mean under current law?
Mr. DURKIN. Under current law.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will get that figure in just a moment.
(Mr. PRYOR assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Our figures were in fiscal year i980, $400 million; in fiscal year 1981, $1.6 billion; and in fiscal year 1982,$2.2 billion.
These totals reflect the net effect of two components: One, increased income tax payments from oil companies resulting from higher profits under decontrol, offset to a substantial degree — and this is the second figure — by lower tax payments from other segments of our society caused by decontrol.
These are the two elements that went into those estimates. Those are the estimates that were included in our overall revenue estimate.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for clarification?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BUMPERS. In looking at this poopsheet on the Durkin amendment, there is a footnote at the bottom of the page that says that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that income from the so-called windfall profits tax or oil decontrol would be $1.9 billion in 1980; $5 billion in 1981; and $5.1 billion in 1982.
I assume the floor manager is saying that because of reduced tax payments as a result of a little slower economy you have offset that against these figures to arrive at the figures used?
Mr. MUSKIE. We assumed nothing with respect to revenues from a windfall profits tax because that issue had not yet crystallized to the point where we could make any assumptions about it.
We assumed it would be a controversial area, that there would be more than one proposal considered, and that by the time of the second budget resolution we would have a clearer picture of what, if anything, was likely to happen with respect to the windfall profits tax.
So all we included in our revenue estimates were the increases in revenues which would take place under current law as a result of decontrol.
Do I make that point clear?
Mr. BUMPERS. I think so. So that, just for further clarification, and a simple question, under Senate Concurrent Resolution 22 for fiscal year 1981 the Budget Committee apparently is — under Senate Concurrent Resolution 22 for 1981 the budget is balanced, and any additional revenues from decontrol that might redound to the benefit of the Treasury then would be in excess of that; is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield whatever time the Senator from Louisiana requires.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief statement? First I ask unanimous consent that Mike Sternof the Finance Committee staff and Van Boyette of my staff be permitted on the floor during the consideration of this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS IN BUDGET RESOLUTION
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the first budget resolution includes a revenue target for fiscal years 1980 and 1981 which is based on the assumption that there will be no significant tax cuts in either year. I want to make sure that this assumption is not misinterpreted as foreclosing the Congress from taking certain actions which may very well be given serious consideration. For example, there is a great deal of concern about the social security tax increases which are scheduled to take place at the start of 1981. In adopting the resolution proposed by the Senate Budget Committee, we would not be committing ourselves to allowing those tax increases to take effect. We would be accepting a commitment to a particular budget situation — but we can arrive at that overall budgetary goal by a number of paths.
The Congress might, for example, want to give consideration to providing some alternative funding sources for the social security trust funds which would permit us to postpone the tax increase scheduled to take place at the start of 1981 — while maintaining both the security of the funds and the overall level of Federal revenues. Or, it might be possible to postpone all or part of the social security tax increase in connection with other revenue legislation becoming effective later in 1981.
The budget resolution, then, sets a framework but it does not bind the Congress to prejudging the specific ways to achieve its objectives. In the case of the1978 tax cut bill, for example, a major reason for the legislation was the need to offset the impact of increased social security taxes.
While that was the goal, the Congress determined that the most desirable way to achieve that goal was through reductions in the general income tax. In considering the upcoming social security tax increase in 1981, Congress may or may not decide to follow the same approach. That is a decision to be made after careful consideration, and we are not at this point foreclosing our ability to make that decision.
Similarly, we may find that it is possible to meet the budgetary goals incorporated in this resolution while still avoiding all or part of the 1981 social security tax increase by finding ways to reduce the costs of existing programs. This is not an easy thing to do, and it is probably a good idea not to be too optimistic about what we can achieve. But reductions in program costs can be achieved. The 1977 social security amendments, for example, would have included even greater tax increases but for the fact that the legislation also modified some features of the benefit structure. The Committee on Finance, in its report to the Budget Committee earlier this year, indicated a belief that substantial savings could be attained in both the health and income security categories that are funded by the payroll tax. The House Ways and Means Committee has reported a social security disability bill which would reduce the costs of that program. The Finance Committee is now actively working on legislation to lower the costs of medicare and medicaid programs. As we examine these programs, we will be looking for ways to restructure them toward meeting the needs they serve in more efficient ways. To the extent that we are able to lower the costs of these programs, we will be serving the same budgetary goals proposed by the budget resolution and those savings can be applied toward lowering the requirements of these programs for increased tax revenues.
The budget resolution we are considering today sets congressional policy concerning our budgetary goals for the next 3 fiscal years. There are serious goals which deserve to be taken seriously. And this is the proper function of the budget process. But it is also proper and entirely consistent with the budget process for us to continually reevaluate and reexamine the details of how we arrive at those goals. In reporting this resolution to the Senate, the Budget Committee has made much the same point. In discussing the revenue goals on page 46 of its report, the Budget Committee notes the need to consider actions designed to mitigate the impact of the social security tax increases. The committee report indicates, as I have done here, that there are a variety of ways in which that might be accomplished. Which option — or combination of options — Congress should choose must be hammered out in the legislative process. The budget resolution provides the framework but not the details.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance for his statement. I listened very carefully to what he has had to say, and I think it is an appropriate analysis of the options which the budget process is designed to make available to us.
In other words, what we are putting in place is not concrete, but what we are putting in place is a plan in which the authorizing committees, including the Committee on Finance, and the Appropriations Committee also have a role to play, and Senators ought to understand that.
Without that kind of flexibility, it would be almost impossible to write a budget because we have got to be able to live with the real world, with the real Senate, and the real House as circumstances unfold.
Given our experience of the last 5 years, who is to predict with any degree of guarantee or certainty what can happen economically just 2 months away, let alone 2 years away?
Mr. LONG. As I read the resolution and the speech made by the Senator from Maine, I gain the impression that the Committee on Finance is going to have the biggest burden in trying to achieve the goals that have been set for us here with budget resolution. We will do our best. I will say that, speaking for our part of the load, it challenges the imagination, but we will do the best we can to live up to our part of it, and I hope the others will.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator. We have become accustomed to seeing the distinguished Senator from Louisiana carry these loads.