September 19, 1979
Page 25228
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. While we are in the process of negotiations on this, Mr. President, I should like to speak to some of the background on this amendment that I am introducing, because it did produce a lot of controversy in the Budget Committee when we were discussing it.
At the time that this came up under revenue consideration in the Budget Committee, we had a letter from the Committee on Finance asking that we not make that assumption in the second concurrent budget resolution, because they wanted the flexibility to structure energy legislation which they felt was important.
I think this is a question that we are all addressing one way or another, those who voted for including $2 billion in revenue at that point from a windfall profits tax. It was stated at the time in a motion that was made by Senator EXON that was approved in the Budget Committee and how we are going to meet these energy needs.
I think it certainly is false, one of the reasons that was given to oppose this measure, that we are not seeking to curtail energy programs. We are just interested, all of us, in conservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us have order in the Chamber.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. In the list of reasons to oppose, there may be many reasons why this should be opposed. As I said earlier, it is not my intention to make this an up or down vote on the windfall profits tax. That is not the issue.
Nor is it, as No. 8 in reasons to oppose oil import reductions resulting from enhanced conservation and production, considered by some as vital to our national security. They are considered vital by all of us. It certainly would not be one of the reasons that I think would be relevant to oppose my amendment. What we are trying to address in this particular moment is just how this should be properly structured to give an adequate reflection to our accounting procedures in the budget process.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I should like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the Senator from Maine, a couple of questions relating to parliamentary status. I am concerned about this windfall profits tax problem and I want to establish a record. I think my friend and colleague can help me do that, because he understands the Budget Act and the Budget Committee process as well as if not better than anybody on the floor of the Senate.
If the second concurrent budget resolution passes in its present form, when the windfall profits tax comes up for consideration after the second concurrent budget resolution passes, am I correct in assuming that if somebody tried to increase the windfall profits tax or decrease it, a point of order could be raised? Is that the viewpoint of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget?
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator is asking me a question about a hypothetical revenue bill, I really hesitate to give a parliamentary ruling or to buy one without seeing the bill.
Obviously, the budget resolution sets a ceiling on spending and a floor on revenues. The point of order is the way that both are protected on the Senate floor. To try to envision every kind of spending bill and to ask hypothetical questions about hypothetical amendments that might be offered to it and how the point of order would be applied is not a very good way to make parliamentary rulings. Obviously, there is a revenue floor in the budget resolution, which the Budget Act says is to be protected. Exactly how the protection would be advanced with respect to a particular situation, I find it a little difficult to try to rule on in advance.
(Mr. MAGNUSON assumed the chair.)
Mr. HATCH. If I could ask it this way, just so everybody on the floor understands: As I understand it, the windfall profits tax in the resolution is $2 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, no. The record is clear on that. I have made it very clear that the $2 billion in the resolution does not assume or mandate passage of the windfall profits tax. It assumes that in order to hold the deficit down, part of the burden of doing so should rest on the revenue side of the budget as well as on the spending side of the budget, and how the revenue is raised is the responsibility of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee of the House. And there are other options.
I do not interpret the $2 billion as a mandate to pass the windfall profits tax. Obviously, because the House has passed one and because the President has requested one, that is one of the options that the Finance Committee is going to be considering. Whether or not it approves one or what kind it will approve or what recommendations it might make to use its proceeds are questions not yet answered. So I am not prepared to answer them.
I just want to make clear on the record here, as I thought I did earlier today in extensive discussion, that the $2 billion does not mandate the passage of any particular kind of tax. As a matter of fact, as Senator ARMSTRONG suggested in his debate on his amendment; it could well be that as a result of faster deregulation of oil, revenues from existing law might very well cover the additional revenues anticipated in the budget resolution, so we may not even need revenue raising legislation, depending upon what that is.
Mr. HATCH. I understand what my colleague is saying. Let us assume $2 billion is raised by whatever means. At this point, would a point of order lie against an amendment reducing the $2 billion?
Mr. MUSKIE. This is not a parliamentary ruling or even a recommended ruling.
Mr. HATCH. I understand. What the viewpoint of my colleague?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me give my caveats.This is not a parliamentary ruling or even a recommended ruling, because I do not think it is particularly useful or helpful to give hypothetical rulings to
hypothetical propositions in the course of a debate on any piece of legislation. I would not do it as a lawyer.
I remember when I was in law school and the professor advised us all on how to deal with the first client to come into the office. The client comes in and lays out a fact situation. You are so fresh from your law school course that you remember exactly what the law is as to that situation. But if you are wise, you say to the client, "Come back tomorrow."
Then, in the next 24 hours, you study that question anew and make sure your recollection is right. Then, if your recollection is right, you give him that advice.
Then, after you have given him the advice, the second day, on his heels, another client comes in and puts to you a fact situation that is almost identical, what seems identical to the first client. Do you give him advice on the spot? No, you do not. You delay him 24 hours to study those facts and make sure they are identical and the same law applies. Then when he comes back, you give him your advice.
Mr. HATCH. What is the Senator's tentative feeling on this matter?
Mr. MUSKIE. What I am saying here is as an ad hoc, casual opinion in response to your question, and probably not very useful. But with that caveat, I am not reluctant to say it.
If the bill that comes to the floor is a revenue raiser, but it does not raise the full $2 billion that is implied in the resolution, in my judgment, it would not be subject to a point of order. So if the first bill does not provide the total $2 billion, I do not believe that is subject to a point of order and I would not raise it unless the parliamentary situation were different than that.
If an amendment is offered to that bill which reduces the revenue potential of that bill but does not reduce it by a billion dollars, should that be subject to a point of order? I really do not know. I do not know what my final judgment on that would be.
The second hypothetical, suppose the first amendment would reduce the revenue potential of that bill by $1.5 billion.
There, I am more disturbed. There, I am more disturbed because it is conceivable that no other amendments would be offered and, if that amendment is adopted without being challenged by a point of order, that the net effect of the bill might be to reduce revenues by $0.5 billion and there might not be a subsequent chance to change the effect of the bill.
So that creates problems.
Or suppose a third hypothetical situation which has been discussed on the floor: Several amendments reducing revenue are offered and the net effect of all of them is to preserve some of the revenue potential of the bill, but the effect of any one of them standing alone might be to destroy the revenue raising potential of the bill.
Well, I do not know how it would come out with the Parliamentarian.
I do not know what my final judgment would be with respect to that.
I think some flexibility in this process is desirable. But those are the hypothetical situations that occurred to me, or that have been suggested to me.
I do not know what the final ruling would be.
The objective, of course, of the point of order is to preserve the revenue floor of the resolution.
How these different situations would be protected by that point of order is a legitimate question. I think it needs to be studied. I would dislike very much to see us try to resolve it finally today before we have had an opportunity, really, to study the implications of each of these possibilities, and there may be others.
Mr. HATCH. To answer my particular hypothetical, if there was $2 billion raised, by whatever means, and somebody came in with an amendment to reduce that amount, would not a point of order lie against that amendment to reduce?
Mr. MUSKIE. It may very well. I think the answer is similar to what it would be for an amendment to a bill which is within the spending limits of the budget resolution, but which, by itself, would breach them. Would that amendment be subject to a point of order?
I do not have a sharp, complete recollection of the precedents here to even answer that question.
Mr. HATCH. If I recall correctly, the points of order have been raised in precisely that situation.
Mr. MUSKIE. If they are, that is one of the weapons of the Budget Act. But how it would necessarily apply to the whole range of possible parliamentary situations in which we might find ourselves is a little hard to say here on the floor of the Senate.
The Senator's imagination is pretty fertile. So is mine. But I doubt very much we could lay down all the permutations upon which the Parliamentarian might be asked to rule.
Mr. HATCH. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state it.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, assuming that the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mrs. KASSEBAUM) is defeated, and the Finance Committee reports a bill to the floor with $1 billion in revenue — not $2 billion, but $1 billion of revenue — and some Senators stand up to offer a tax credit, of any amount, that would reduce that $1 billion, would that be subject to a point of order in accordance with section 311 of the Budget Act?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it would.
Mr. DOLE. It would be subject to a point of order.
I suggest that is the key. I do not know of any Senator on this floor, those on the floor will understand they should bring all their amendments to the Finance Committee, that someone will not get the message, there is always somebody who does not.
Mr. MUSKIE. Could I put another parliamentary point.
Mr. DOLE. Could I finish this point?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator ought to discuss both points.
Mr. HATCH. Then I would like to make a point.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think the Kassebaum amendment changes the situation.
Mr. President, assume it prevails, that the $2 billion additional revenue assumption in the budget is dropped, thus raising the deficit by $2 billion.
Let us assume the windfall profits tax comes to the floor with all its proceeds earmarked for production incentives, conservation incentives, and others, so no revenue is raised in it beyond what is earmarked for purposes.
Now, at that point, if a Senator offered an amendment, a tax cutting amendment of the kind discussed by the Senator from Kansas, would it be subject to a point of order?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If it has the effect of eroding the reconciliation process, it would.
Mr. MUSKIE. Of what?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If it has the effect of eroding the reconciliation process, then it would be subject to a point of order.
Mr. MUSKIE. So that the Kassebaum amendment, if it fails, has nothing to do with the parliamentary problems of anybody offering a revenue reduction amendment to the Internal Revenue Code.
I mean, the fact we assume $2 billion of additional revenue does not change the nature of the ruling that has to be made if a tax reduction amendment which would reduce revenues below the floor in the budget resolution were offered.
I am perfectly willing to engage in these parliamentary exercises, but may I say to my good friends, time is running on this bill. There is one more amendment to come. We have tried to accommodate every amendment and every Senator with an amendment within the time limitation of the law.
I would sincerely hope that we get to the amendment, take as much time on the Kassebaum amendment as we need, but hopefully exercise some restraint in the consumption of time so other Senators can be accommodated.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield me some time?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield some time to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am concerned because I support the Kassebaum amendment. I think it is a good amendment.
What I am concerned about is the argument being used against Mrs. KASSEBAUM's amendment here that if it is passed it will foreclose increasing the revenues in the future, or if it is not passed it may be subject to a point of order if it is raised in the future, except in the Finance Committee itself.
I think it is an important issue. I just want to bring that up.
Might I propound one more parliamentary inquiry, and then I will quit the floor?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state it.
Mr. HATCH. Is it not true, if we want to avoid these parliamentary problems in the future, perhaps the method to do so would be to move under section 904(b) to suspend the Budget Act for the windfall profits tax legislation.
Would that be the parliamentary way of solving the problem and can we do it in advance during this debate so that we can protect the rights of Senators in the future?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Did the Senator propound a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. HATCH. I did.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is possible to waive the requirements of 311of the Budget Act by motion.
Mr. HATCH. Am I correct in assuming it is a motion pursuant to 904(b) to suspend the Budget Act?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. HATCH. Can that motion be made in advance of a future debate, during this present debate?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It could be done in advance.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
I call the attention of my colleagues to this issue, which I think is important.
I do not want arguments being raised against the Kassebaum amendment at this time that points of order may be raised in the future as a result of her amendment at this time. I want my colleagues to realize that points of order could lie in the future, should the Kassebaum amendment not be agreed to and $2 billion worth of revenues raised. Then any reduction in the windfall profits tax; assuming that is the area where the revenue is raised, may be subject to a point of order. I just want to make the record on that particular issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, if I ever saw or heard or smelled a red herring, this is it.
Of course, the Budget Act can be suspended, just as the rules of the Senate can be suspended. We suspend the rules of the Senate every day.
Section 904 of the Budget Act says nothing that would not be the fact if section 904 did not exist.
The Senate, by unanimous consent, can suspend the Budget Act, just as it can suspend any rule or all the rules, which we do every day.
However, what the Senator from Utah seems to be encouraging is that we do it on a routine basis, on a wholesale scale, and even in advance of specific issues, because he does not like the Budget Act. At least, he does not like that part of it that he finds uncomfortable.
Of course, the revenue side of the budget resolution is subject to a point of order. What other discipline is available for that purpose? Just as the spending side is, and I do not see him quarreling with a point of order on the spending side. I never heard him quarrel about that, only about the point of order with respect to the Kassebaum amendment, and that is a red herring.
The ruling he is talking about would apply to this resolution if the Kassebaum amendment prevails, in the same way it would apply if the Kassebaum amendment is defeated.
So that is what this argument is all about, except perhaps as a devious way to frighten people into voting for the Kassebaum amendment on irrelevant grounds.
This is a straightforward issue. I have not made any argument against the Kassebaum amendment that should have provoked this parliamentary can of worms. I have answered her concerns on a straightforward basis. Because the Senator from Kansas felt that including this $2 billion was, in effect, an endorsement of the windfall profits tax, I made it clear 2 hours ago that that was not the implication we have drawn from that $2billion revenue assumption.
As to a concern that such large amounts encourage budgetary slackness, there is that danger. But what we tried to do is to put in numbers, on both the spending side and the revenue side, that would accommodate the debate on all these energy issues which have not yet been resolved. We may have put in too much room, as events may prove, one way or another; but the Senate and the House have that potential within their control. So I do not see why we should be that alarmed.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE).
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, on page 126 of the hearings of the Budget Committee it says: Exon motion to increase revenues by assuming windfall profits tax of $2 billion.
That is rather specific so far as the Senator from Kansas is concerned. However, the point I make — and it is not a red herring — is this: What my distinguished friend from the Budget Committee is saying is that we cannot reduce the $2 billion. If we come out of the Finance Committee with a net so-called windfall profits tax of $2.5 billion, we can take it down to $2 billion. Nobody quarrels with that. The point is that if we come out with $1.4 billion, after all the credits we are assuming in our committee today and the next day and the next day, then anyone who offers an amendment to reduce that by $10 million will be subject to a point of order.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who made even a better point a minute ago in discussing this with me.
Mr. BOREN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, what we are dealing with here is not a red herring at all. It is a very real issue:
I submit, with all due respect, that the red herring has been brought in by the distinguished chairman of the committee in stating the case as follows: If we had a bill which raised no revenue, then even without the Kassebaum limit, a motion to reduce it would be subject to a point of order.
That is the red herring, because that is a case that never will occur.
The case that is very likely to occur is that the Finance Committee would vote out a bill which raised some revenue, let us say $2 billion of revenue, and then an amendment is offered to reduce that amount of revenue, let us say to provide some exemption with the Kassebaum amendment.
That motion would not be subject to a point of order.
However, without the Kassebaum amendment, assuming that we would be raising some $2 billion and then there was an amendment to reduce that amount, it would be subject to a point of order, and of course it could be changed by unanimous consent.
What we are really saying here is that, given the more likely case of what is likely to come out of the Finance Committee, Members would not be able, on the floor of the Senate, on one of the most important matters to come before the Senate in this year, a matter of grave concern to the future of this Nation in assuring an adequate energy supply for our people — that Members of the Senate would not be able to offer amendments which reduce the revenue figure below $2 billion, even if those amendments were cost effective in getting the people of this country more energy.
I submit that that is a very serious matter. It is not a red herring. It is something aimed at encouraging the process of debate and the deliberative process in terms of cost effectiveness on one of the most important issues this body faces.
So there is a distinct difference in whether or not we have the Kassebaum amendment, in terms of flexibility and the freedom of individual Members to offer amendments.
I say again, with all due respect, that I am afraid the only red herring is the fictional possibility raised by the chairman of the Budget Committee of the circumstance in which we never are likely to be operating.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from Kansas has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I again urge Senators, if they can find it within their plans, to find a way in the remaining time to accommodate the conclusion of the debate on this amendment and the amendment to follow.
I do not need any more time on this amendment. I doubt that anything further I might say would be persuasive to anybody in the ranks of my opposition.
I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, will thechairman yield?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas has 7 minutes.
Mr. MELCHER. Mr: President, will the chairman yield to me?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine has 41 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield back 36 minutes of my 41 minutes.
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr: MELCHER. Mr. President, just for amplification and for the edification of the Senate, if any tax cuts were offered that would be below the amount in the budget resolution, to raise less revenue, it would be subject to the same restrictions or constraints as those talked about here in the windfall profits tax.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is exactly the point I was making, which was described as a red herring. It depends upon whether the ruling is one you like or one you do not like.
I have been brought up pretty close to herring on the coast of Maine, and I think I recognize a red one when I see one. [Laughter.]
The Senator is correct.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the way I understand the situation, the Senator from Kansas (Mrs. KASSEBAUM) definitely has a cause for concern. The way I understand this situation, when the Committee on Finance reports out the windfall profits bill it will not be subject to a point of order if it raises as much as 1 cent net to the Treasury.
Now, if it lost money, of course it wouldbe subject to a point of order.
I have discussed this matter with the Parliamentarian and I would like to be corrected if I am in error here. Let us assume the Finance Committee reports out a bill that raises a net of $1 billion, perhaps including some amendments that raise taxes and some that provide tax credits and deductions. Then other Members of the Senate would be foreclosed from offering any amendment that would reduce the revenue gain in that bill. In other words, the committee could recommend a reduction, but anything that could not muster majority vote in the committee could not be offered on the floor by a Senator, to take care of a matter about which he is concerned.
Mr. President, I am not happy about that state of affairs. I have no doubt that as far as any amendment the Senator from Louisiana is interested in, he can persuade the committee to vote on it one way or the other. The probabilities are that if he could not prevail in his own committee, he is not going to be able to prevail in the Senate. That does not bother this Senator. But I am concerned about other Senators saying they have not been treated fairly, that people on the Finance Committee took care of the matter they were concerned about while other Senators would be foreclosed out here by a point of order from even being able to offer their amendments.
Mr. President, I hope very much that such a situation could be avoided. I hope that we could vote on the bill, let everyone, particularly if he has an amendment germane to the bill, have the opportunity to offer his amendment so long as it does not turn the bill into a revenue loser, and then go to the House and resolve our differences the way we always have in the past.
I am concerned about the amendment not because of anything the Senator from Louisiana wants to offer. He can offer his amendment in committee. But I am concerned about the right of every Senator who might want to offer an amendment that might be of concern to his constituents — either for the low income people who might be adversely affected, or for his producers, or perhaps he wants to offer a tax credit to help certain consumers. I understand that they would be foreclosed. I would hope that it could be agreed that they not be foreclosed, that so long as the bill with the amendment would still be a positive addition to the revenues of the country, that the amendment would be in order. My understanding is that it would not be in order under the Budget Act.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that violates section 311 of the Budget Act.
Mr. LONG. That is my understanding.
I am reluctant to make a motion to make all amendments in order. But I feel compelled to vote for the Kassebaum amendment to allow Senators a chance to offer their amendments. I personally do not like the idea of setting a stage for Senators to be denied the opportunity to offer their amendments as long as the bill would remain a revenue raising bill.
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. DOLE. There might be some terrific amendment thought of between now and the time the bill comes to the floor that would not only be cost effective but it might produce some energy and a Senator would offer the" amendment and another Senator would say no, it is subject to a point of order and section 311; the Parliamentarian would rule it is subject to a point of order, and the first Senator would be out of business.
Mr. LONG. That is right.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, I find it incredible that the chairman of the Finance Committee has announced to us he is going to vote for Kassebaum so that he can change the parliamentary situation with respect to rulings on amendments to revenue bills which have not even come to the floor. Surely he must know better than that. He can vote for Kassebaum for any reason he wishes, rational or irrational, but to suggest that by his vote for Kassebaum he is, in effect, making a parliamentary ruling on amendments to future revenue bills that favor his interpretation of the Budget Act, I find incredible.
Last spring we had the 1979 Supplemental Appropriations bill with exactly the same situation. Senators wishing to add spending to that bill had, at the same time, to propose cuts in other portions of the bill or be subject to a point of order.
I did not hear any screams from the chairman of the Finance Committee at that time. Surely the same situation should apply with respect to the revenue side.
If these Senators do not like the budget discipline — and the chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated that over and over again, let us repeal the Budget Act and you will not have this awkward inconvenience and encumbrance standing in your way.
What I understand is being said here is that it might just be possible in future revenue bills that come to the floor that we can no longer build Christmas trees on the floor of the Senate as we have in the past. Perhaps we may never again be able to write Christmas trees on the floor that the chairman of the Finance Committee then takes to conference and tailors to his own specifications. That is what it is all about.
Senator LONG, who is a very shrewd parliamentarian and tactician on the floor of the Senate, saw his opportunity to sow confusion as a result of this issue that has been raised around the Kassebaum amendment. It has nothing to do with the Kassebaum amendment. Believe me. It has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with future revenue bills that have not even come to the floor.
For those who want built-in protection against the inconveniences of the Budget Act, may I suggest the most direct route to remove them? Introduce legislation to repeal it. As a matter of fact, if amendments like this are adopted, if parliamentary rulings such as recommended by the chairman of the Finance Committee are approved by the Senate, and if the discipline continues to slip, I may be the first to suggest that we just let it drop into discard like an abandoned old pair of shoes and not even go through the process of repeal. Discipline is discipline, and every time it begins to bite around here someone squirms.
Let them squirm as far as I am concerned. If enough Senators reject the discipline of the Budget Act it will be dead and Senators will not need parliamentary rulings to do it. Senators will not have to repeal it. It will die of its own dead weight.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas has 3 minutes remaining.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, does anyone else wish to speak?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana 1 minute.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Senator was describing a situation that existed last year. I worked with the Senator from Maine last year. We were working on a revenue bill and we were working under a ceiling. When amendments violated the ceiling we objected to them. The first objection, in most instances, was made by the Senator from Maine. I am glad he did object because we had to stay within the ceiling and we did, even though some did not like it. That was our obligation, and we stayed within it.
Here we are talking about a situation where we anticipate bringing a bill before the Senate that will raise a lot of revenue. The committee can bring the bill out in such a fashion that it only raises a few dollars if it wants to do so. But assume that the committee brings a bill to the Senate that does raise a substantial amount of money on a net basis, hundreds of millions of dollars, a bill that puts a lot of taxes on a lot of people in this country. As I understand it, the parliamentary situation would be such that individual Senators on this floor would be precluded from offering amendments that might reduce 'the revenue in the bill, amendments which might be of vital concern to their States or to their constituents.
I do not particularly like that situation. It is par for the course for Senators to offer amendments on revenue bills of that sort. The Senate tends to be generous, but then we go to the conference with the House of Representatives and the House says, "No, we are not going to accept all that," and we usually split the difference by the time we get through.
I want to make it clear now before the situation arises. I may be the one making the points of order myself if it works out that way. As I understand the situation, the revenue bills that we bring before the Senate from the committee will have to raise revenues, and any amendment that would reduce revenues below that amount will be subject to a point of order. That is my best advice on the subject, and I think if that is the case, the Senate should know it. I do not want Senators to come to me when the point of order is made and say, "Why didn't you protect us?" The way I read this, they will not be protected. Their amendments will be out of order. I think Senators should be so advised.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time on the amendment has expired.