December 15, 1979
Page 36296
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, without additional tax incentives, it is highly likely that our industries are going to continue to defer decisions on whether to make modifications of existing oil or natural gas boilers, They are going to continue to ask for and seek exemptions from the Fuel Use Act. I would like to remind this body that, today, virtually everyone asking for exemptions is getting them. We are simply not taking any steps forward under the Fuel Use Act today.
Let us remember — we are motivated to do things in business for economic reasons. We are motivated to take actions we would not otherwise take if they are in the economic interests of our business. We are dealing now with hundreds of thousands of companies that are making economic decisions concerning coal conversion. Should we, in the national interest, convert from oil and gas to coal? Business persons ask. They may say it is in the national interest, but they also say, "it is too expensive. I cannot afford a $17 million boiler."
We are not going to get a positive reaction without this incentive. This is the breakeven point. This is the point at which many of those boards' decisions will be made.
Mr. President, it cannot be any simpler. We need to provide a significant incentive now to industry to overcome the logjam that is preventing increased use of coal and less reliance on imported oil and on natural gas by our Nation's industrial sector. I think my amendment goes far in this direction. I urge the Senate to adopt it.
I certainly yield to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I have listened with intense interest to the correct documentation of the agreements for pending amendment, as modified.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) and I have been members of the President's Commission on Coal for the past year. We are grateful to the leadership of the Senate in giving us the opportunity to address this subject matter as members of the Commission in a sense, perhaps more detailed and exhaustive than other Members of the Senate who are as knowledgeable per se but have not, perhaps, given the time in a program as that in which we participate. Our work is, in part, reflected in this pending measure.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to join the Senator from West Virginia in indicating that we are grateful for the opportunity the Senate has given to us to serve on the Coal Commission. We have a voice there, but not a vote. Governor Rockefeller, the Governor of my distinguished colleague's State, has a vote as chairman. But we work intimately together toward a common goal.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is true. I did not want to admit that we do not have votes on the Commission.
Mr. PERCY. We do have a voice.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We have, hopefully, the power of counseling, which we have done exhaustively.
I am not going to talk over a minute or two because as I have said, you have correctly described the situation. I do want to add that we can save 150,000 barrels of oil every 24 hours in the United States of America if we do the job of converting industrial boilers as provided for in our amendment.
I think it can be done. I understand the opposition from those who do not agree with us, as they look at the bottom line, the cost, but I point out to my colleagues that it is a minimal cost, for a result which, as I have stated, releases 150,000 barrels of oil every day for other uses.
I think it is very important for us not to think only in terms of coal or oil shale. I remember when we were working with forestry and agricultural products, and we know that they are feasible, very frankly, as substitutes for oil or natural gas, when processed. What we are faced with today is to determine whether or not, in an amendment of this kind, we are ready, not just to spend dollars but to spend dollars that actually return a dividend — a dividend to the American public; a dividend to the security of the people of the United States of America.
This is a subject that has been worked on in this body for a long time. I want to add that, and I am not referring to any specific administration, but administration after administration has not acted upon, frankly, the legislation which has been passed in this body to promote the utilization of coal. Legislation is in statute which mandates that we move forward in the conversion to coal from natural gas and petroleum in boilers, industrial and utility.
I am not against petroleum. I am certainly not against natural gas. These are products that come from the earth in West Virginia, just as does coal, either through surface or deep mining.
Here, in the United States, as the Senator from Illinois has said, is our most abundant fossil fuel.
It does not have to be brought 5,000 miles, or whatever the miles, to this country from unstable and unfriendly sources positioned around the world. Coal is here — in abundance.
It is here in Wyoming. It is in the mine at Gillette — the largest coal mine in all the world. It is not only in West Virginia or Pennsylvania or Kentucky. Coal is all over America — in New York, Illinois, Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and other States. It is ready to be used. It would be a mistake not to avail ourselves of the opportunity to use coal at this time.
I think my colleagues may perhaps think I am a little impassioned as I speak on the subject of coal and its relationship to the men and women of this country, the people of our Nation. I believe in what I am saying, and I hope the Senate will respond to the well-reasoned appeal which this amendment provides.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We all recognize that when he speaks with emotion, as he has been here, it is because he knows he is speaking for the welfare of the people of the United States and of the people of West Virginia, which he has so ably represented for so many years.
I think it is important to note that we have pared this amendment down to a period of 4 years, at a billion dollars in cost. If, after that 4-year experiment, we find the new credit is working, we may want to extend it to 1990. If we do that, it is estimated that we can conserve 270,000 barrels a day by 1990. Ninety-nine million barrels could be saved in that year, at a cost to the Government of $5.97 per barrel savings. Compare that with the government's cost per barrel of $10.60 for synthetic fuels, in the bill we created last month.
Certainly this kind of amendment, and the amendment to be offered by our distinguished colleague from West Virginia on utility conversions, which I am cosponsoring will really provide incentives to obtain energy, independence and decrease our importation of foreign oil.
Mr. President, I am glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON), also a member of the Coal Commission.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, I would not attempt to match the eloquence of the Senator from West Virginia in behalf of this amendment. Just let me say that I agree with him. I agree with what has been said by the several sponsors, and I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment by the Senator from Illinois to extend and increase the energy investment tax credit for coal-burning equipment.
For years, coal has been heralded as a cornerstone of our drive for energy independence. Our ability to break the OPEC stranglehold and free ourselves of the strategic and economic consequences of oil dependence centers upon large scale conversions to coal. We have known this for a long time. But, large scale conversions just are not happening.
Coal today supplies about 18 percent of our total energy needs, barely 1 percent more than it supplied in 1973 at the time of the Arab oil embargo.
The problem is not a lack of coal. We have enough right here in this country to last hundreds of years.
The problem is not a lack of miners. Over 20,000 are unemployed or on short workweeks, and anxious to return to full time, permanent work.
The problem is not a lack of productive capacity. The coal industry estimates that they have 150 million tons excess capacity this year.
The problem — and it is a problem which affects every single American — is that there simply is not the market for coal that there should be.
The problems associated with the use of coal dictate that there must be financial incentives to coal users such as this amendment provides if we ever hope to replace oil and natural gas with coal in industrial and utility boilers. The national interest is served every time a barrel of foreign oil is replaced with domestic coal, and it is well within the national interest to help pay for it.
The coal itself is not that expensive. At an average cost of about $25 per ton under long-term contracts, a ton of coal is a bargain compared to the four barrels of oil it can replace.
But in many instances long-term fuel cost savings are overshadowed by the unusually high initial capital investments associated with coal-fired equipment. Whereas an average 250 million btu per hour oil boiler costs about $500,000, a comparable coal boiler could cost up to 30 times as much by the time you add the necessary crushing and hauling equipment, and the air pollution devices you need to meet Federal, State, and local environmental requirements.
The Coal Commission, on which I serve with Senators PERCY and RANDOLPH, has
estimated that this amendment could encourage sufficient conversions to coal to save 270,000 barrels of oil per day by 1990. A new book by Charles Mann and James N. Heller projects that a tax credit along the lines of our amendment could cause industry to increase its use of coal by 13 million tons per year in 1985, and save us almost $2 billion in overseas oil payments in 1985 alone. That is at today's prices, so in reality the figure is sure to be much higher.
I sincerely hope these calculations are right. If anything, I hope they are low. But, if they are wrong — if industry does not take advantage of the credits offered by this amendment to decrease their use of foreign oil — then at least the amendment would not have cost us anything. We have a lot to gain from this amendment, and nothing to lose.
This amendment offers the real possibility of substantial off savings in a cost effective manner. It is an important part of a comprehensive range of incentives and initiatives which I believe must be offered to realize coal's potential in our efforts toward energy independence.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I would like to salute the Senator from Illinois and join with our colleagues who have spoken earlier, the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Kentucky, in supporting this amendment.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators PERCY, HUDDLESTON, RANDOLPH, and other Senators in sponsoring an amendment to increase the investment tax credit available to industry for expenses associated with converting boilers off oil and gas to coal, and extend the current expiration date of the existing 10 percent business investment tax credit.
This credit will be made available for those who purchase new coal-burning boilers, instead of oil and gas burners, and for equipment which converts old boilers, air pollution control equipment and onsite equipment used to unload, store, and prepare coal for boilers.
This credit would be in addition to the existing business investment tax credit of 10 percent. It extends to coal the same provisions the Finance Committee included in this bill for solar, wind, geothermal, ocean thermal, and hydropower.
Mr. President, unfortunately the coal-producing States of our Nation are not heavily represented on the Finance Committee and, thus, incentives for direct use of coal are frequently given short thrift. As has been stated by the other sponsors of this amendment, adoption of the Percy- Randolph-Huddleston-Bayh amendment may do more to save oil than most of the tax credits incorporated by the Finance Committee into this bill.
Mr. President, the news from the oil front is bleaker every day. This week Saudi Arabia and three other OPEC cartel members announced a $6/barrel increase in oil prices — a move that may cost U.S. consumers between 5 and 10 cents a gallon more for gasoline and home heating oil. This represents a 33-percent increase for the Saudis, OPEC's largest producer and one of our major oil suppliers. The OPEC meeting coming up next week will likely add still further to our oil import bill through yet another round of increases. We just must move to stimulate heavier reliance on domestic energy sources.
Coal is at the top of this list. The President's Commission on Coal estimates that this extension of a 20-percent energy investment tax credit to 1984 would consume 270,000 barrels of oil per day by 1990.
Mr. President, the major obstacle to coal conversion today is the heavy expense involved for up-front capital expenditures for coal conversion. The heavy expenses here are for boilers and air pollution control devices. While the cost of coal itself is one-half to one-third as much as oil, coal burning and pollution control equipment is at least three times as expensive as similar equipment for oil or gas. It is these heavy up-front expenses that give pause to those industrial facilities that would convert to coal. We must get them over that hump.
Mr. President, as has frequently been said, coal can be this country's ace in the hole. We have more than enough capacity to supply those industrial facilities who would burn coal with this source of energy. Right now, we have excess capacity of 150 million tons of coal in this country which is not being utilized. In my own State, where coal mine after coal mine has been closed, and hundreds of frustrated coal miners are out of work, we are producing far less coal than we could.
Mr. President, this amendment should have the effect of stimulating direct use of coal now. It can cut the United States use of oil in the near term.
Mr. President, we are spending $60 million or more a year for foreign oil. I fear that at some point — maybe sooner than most of us would like — we will not be able to supply our petroleum needs no matter how much we pay for oil. We need to cut oil consumption just as quickly as we can. There are probably only three ways to do this: Conserve; expand production of alcohols from agricultural, forest products, and coal; convert oil- and gas-fired boilers to coal.
Beyond these three efforts, we are out there on a limb until synfuels and other alternative energy sources come on line.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, after hearing others speak with a great deal of conviction in support of the amendment—
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. I must say that when I contemplate my role in opposition, I feel like the proverbial skunk at a lawn party.
But there are budgetary costs to this amendment which need to be considered, especially in the context of the revenues that the pending bill would now raise and the other budget demands of the 1980's which I discussed with the Senate, it seems like a century ago.
But what this bill does is extend the present credits, tax credits available for the same purposes for 4 years, from 1981 to 1984. That is the current 10-percent energy investment tax credit and the 10-percent standard investment credit. Both of those are part of present law.
The pending amendment would double the energy investment tax credit from 10 to 20 percent.
The amendment, in its original form, would have extended those credits until fiscal year 1990. And the distinguished sponsor of the amendment (Mr. PERCY) has indicated that if it works in the first 4 years, it should, of course, be extended until 1990. And the cost would be $5.89 billion for that period.
And the cost for the 4-year period is, as stated by Senator PERCY, $1.1 billion.
Now, the question that we need to face, I think, is not only whether or not this budgetary cost, as balanced off against all the other budgetary demands we are facing in the 1980's, is necessary; whether — if oil prices escalate as almost everyone I have talked to in this Senate over 4 years expects them to do, above $30, above $40, and beyond — the existing incentives will prove to be sufficient to stimulate the development of our coal resources.
And I would agree, surely, with the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee (Mr. RANDOLPH) , as I have in all the years of my membership on that committee, that that objective is in the national interest.
But now my immediate objective is to set aside a sizable portion of the revenues to be generated by the pending bill to balance the budget. I have heard all these other proposals to set aside revenues for this purpose or that purpose, or to create tax credits for this purpose or that purpose.
I would like to propose that we preserve some of these revenues to meet the objective of balancing the budget. We now have a commitment to do that in fiscal year 1981, which is the first year of the Percy amendment. Well, I think maybe, in that connection, the Senate ought to be interested in the present status of this bill.
When I presented the budget demands of the 1980's in the context of the status of the bill as it came out of the Finance Committee, what did it reveal? What did that analysis reveal with respect to the 4 years in which the Percy amendment would now be effective, fiscal years 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984?
Our budgetary demands included nothing more than current law (indexing for inflation where mandated by law), indexing for a discretionary inflation, providing the real growth in defense that the Senate has already approved — which, incidentally, is less than the President is now recommending — reflecting 1980 energy legislation, incorporating the House-passed welfare reform, allowing for the catastrophic health insurance bill now being considered in the Finance Committee and reflecting the $55 billion tax cut in 1982 which the budget resolution assumes, and assuming tax cuts in the later years consistent with the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon tax cutting resolution included in the 1978 tax law. Making those budget assumptions, and assuming the windfall bill as it came out of the Finance Committee, we projected a deficit of $19 billion in 1981, instead of a surplus; and $18 billion deficit in 1982, a $27 billion deficit in 1983, and an $18 billion deficit in 1984.
Now, we have increased the revenues in the pending bill. How does that increase change the picture? That is the important question.
These are very rough and tentative figures that I have gotten from the Joint Committee on Taxation, and they need to be refined and qualified. But, nevertheless, they are useful.
What we have done to increase revenues in the current bill is add $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1981, as against the deficit of $19 billion to which I referred a moment ago.
In fiscal year 1982, we have added $1.4 billion, as against a deficit of $18 billion, to which I referred a moment ago.
For 1983, we have added $2.1 billion, as against a deficit of $27 billion, to which I referred a moment ago.
And, in 1984, we have added $2.6 billion, as against a deficit of $18 billion for that year, to which I referred a moment ago.
So, Mr. President, notwithstanding this week-long effort to add $40 billion, roughly, to the Finance Committee bill, the struggle that involved balancing off the interests of those who believe in maximum incentives for oil production, and so on, as against those who were worried about the budget and the consumer, what we have produced out of all of that has not been sufficient to significantly reduce the projected deficits for 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984, which will be driven by the tax cuts everybody seems to want. We have had three proposals in the course of the debate on this bill for earlier tax cuts than I have assumed; and there still are the increases in energy spending already mandated in other legislation and increases in defense spending more modest than the President is now proposing. I mean, the deficits reflect all of that.
And, notwithstanding these efforts to raise revenues — and I think that what we have done, given the differences of opinion in this body, by way of raising revenues has been a significant achievement — the increase does not make a significant impact on deficits already projected if we do all the things that we have said we want to do and that I have described.
And so, notwithstanding the merits of pushing as hard as we can for maximum utilization of our coal in the interest of reducing our dependence upon oil, we should recognize that we already have incentives written into law which ought to work, given the projected continuing escalation in oil prices. It seems to me that balancing off all of these considerations, we really ought to begin saying no. And surely we are not going to be asked to say no to obviously bad propositions.
I mean, in this day of concern about energy, almost anything proposed in the name of conserving energy or maximizing production or developing alternative sources is going to be regarded as good.
But we cannot say yes to all of them. We have got to make selective judgments. We have got to make choices and we have got to trade them off against these other provisions of the bill.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to my good friend from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I believe the Senator's speech is illustrating what I have been trying to say on occasions, that it is beyond the capability of the Finance Committee, just like I believe it is beyond the capability of the Senate to raise money with taxes as fast as other imaginative Senators can find ways to get rid of the money.
So that this amendment would cost a great deal, as the Senator has said, many billions of dollars, especially if you carry it through with what it implies. And I think you would have to do that.
And so, having made all this battle, as the Senator suggests, to add the money to the bill, we will be right back into the same old deficit position by offering a couple of amendments like this.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Louisiana that when I think of the blood that we had to sweat to add that last $5 billion more revenue in this bill over a 10-year period, here, with one amendment, we are going to spend more than that.
Mr. LONG. There she goes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Over that same 10-year period. And that is exactly what I am talking about.
And I understand the worthiness of this amendment. There is no mistaking the intentions of the sponsors of this policy, that it prevail for the entire decade, even though this particular amendment has been cut down to 4 years.
The sponsors want it continued. Once it is on the book, it will be continued by a minor amendment somewhere down the line.
That is my case, I say to Members. I am pleading for reserving a little money, hopefully moving toward that balanced budget to which we all commit ourselves in speech after speech on the Senate floor. I see no reason to add anything more to the debate at this point.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in the interest of coming to a conclusion, and, we have heard clear and persuasive arguments on both sides, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 minutes equally divided on this amendment, the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, until we come to a resolution of the matter. Is that agreeable?
Mr. PERCY. That is agreeable.
Mr. HEINZ. Reserving the right to object, can I get a sense of how many people there are who want to speak? I would like about 2 minutes.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois would be happy to yield 2 minutes. The Senator from Illinois will require 5 minutes to reply to my distinguished colleague from Maine. Unless there are others who want to speak, I will yield back the remaining time. I am anxious to bring this to a vote as quickly as I can. Is it the intention of the manager of the bill to object to the amendment?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. WALLOP. Will the Senator withhold that? On our time, I want to ask a question of the Senator from Illinois about the possibility of pulling down the amendment and putting it in with hearings promised in the debate on this floor on another program directly related to the same subject.
Mr. PERCY. I am honor bound to go ahead with the amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. We would not object if the Senator wishes a vote. We would be happy to give him a vote. The Senator from Wyoming wishes to make a proposal which we think has merit and is worthy, and the Senator may want to hear it.
Mr. PERCY. I would be happy to listen to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from New York?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. PERCY. If the Senator from Pennsylvania would wait until I respond to the Senator from Maine, I will be happy to yield.
For the benefit of my distinguished colleague from Maine, I do not have to remind him that we worked together as authors of the Budget Reform Act, which I was also coauthor by former Senator Sam Ervin. I have great respect for that and have consistently voted to support and maintain the principle and back that up.
But I cannot think of an amendment that is more in line with what the Senator from Maine wants to accomplish.
I agree. There ought to be enough proceeds left over to reduce the deficit. I would hope that we would have billions of dollars that could be applied toward that, I hope we would not find enough ways to spend all the money.
But I remind my distinguished colleague that in this case, we are talking about a maximum expenditure of only $1.1 billion over 4 years, the potential for which is absolutely huge.
There would be no expenditure — it is not an expenditure amendment but a tax credit amendment. There will be no cost at all unless industries all over this country make the decision that they have not yet made, to convert to coal. If that occurs, 70 percent of the money will be private money, cash on the barrel head.
There is only one reason that they will do that. They will only convert to coal because they think it will enhance their profitability, reduce their cost, increase their assurance of supply and energy. The Federal Government shares in that, with 50 percent of whatever savings are made ending up in the Federal Treasury in the way of taxation. So this is one way of increasing our revenue.
One other thing. Let us look at my amendment from a cost-effective standpoint. How does it compare with expenditures made for other energy sources? We have decided to go ahead with synthetic fuel. I have already cited the figures by authorities in the field. This investment for boilers for coal is twice as cost effective as for synthetic fuel, twice as effective. We would pay less than $6 per barrel of oil displaced, versus over $10 per barrel for synfuels.
Who would dispute that this kind of investment is a good return on investment? The Federal Government gains, industry gains, and we strengthen the dollar. The potential, as I have stated before, is $2 billion a year saved in oil imports. Lessen our petrodollars by $2 billion, and that automatically strengthens the dollar. It strengthens its buying power abroad, reduces our cost for goods purchased abroad, reduces inflation. It certainly lessens our dependence in a very material and important way on the imported oil which is making us hostage to the whims of certain persons abroad.
Though I am sympathetic with the goals and objectives of the chairman of the Budget Committee, this amendment is a cost-effective amendment. It increases the chances we have for strengthening our economy and strengthening our budgetary position.
I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding time.
I commend him on his amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
I think the importance of the amendment is very straightforward. We know that we must convert just at every possible opportunity our facilities that use imported oil to using coal. We have an excess capacity today of 150 million tons of coal. We have several thousand coal miners who are in fact unemployed because we do not use the existing capacity, notwithstanding the fact that we have had three administrations — this administration, the Ford administration, and the Nixon administration before that — which promised this country that we would be turning to coal.
The only turning we have done on coal is to turn the clock back, and that is against the first and best interests of this country. It is time that we turn the clock forward.
We can do this with the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. Indeed, unless we take some positive steps forward, unless we address the obvious problems that exist in converting to coal — it is expensive, there are pollution control devices and procedures that must be followed, there is a need to develop a climate that is positive and dependable with respect to coal — we can expect to be sitting here another 5 or 10 years from now having this same colloquy and debate. I hope that is absolutely unnecessary, and we will be able, as a result of adopting this amendment today, to be able to say we have done something constructive and positive.
I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. How much time does the Senator from Maine wish?
Mr. MUSKIE. Five minutes.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes, which is half of the time this side has.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator reminds me of what happens to me in January.
Christmas is coming next week. In January I will begin getting the Christmas bills. They will exceed my January income. Then the white sales will come on, as they do every January. My wife will say, "Honey, can I go down and buy and save some money at these sales?"
My reply will be, "Honey, we cannot afford to save that kind of money."
The distinguished Senator from Illinois has given me a conventional response whenever the question of budgetary restraint is raised that, in the long term, we shall make it up. But when is the long term? He, himself, in evaluating the cost of his amendment for 4 years, stated a budget cost of $1.1 billion — not a profit, but a budget cost. Over a 10-year period, he, himself, stated the budget cost at $5.89 billion.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the development of our coal resources will be in the public interest and will strengthen our economy in the long term, but in the short term, if we do not find a way to balance this budget and to reduce the burden on our taxpayers, spending money in this fashion is going to be counterproductive to a healthy budget and a healthy economy, not productive.
The second question is, In order to do this, do we have to provide everything that is asked for or should we not legitimately consider that what we have already done will achieve this objective, if not in quite as costly a manner?
Mr. President, when it comes to balancing the budget, there is always an excuse why my project is justified even though it adds to the deficit, even though it adds to spending. In order to balance the budget, we are going to have to say no to the good projects. There are not enough bad ones, in the name of energy, to save the kind of money needed to balance the budget.
Mr. President, since last spring, when we committed ourselves to a balanced budget in 1981, we have been moving in the opposite direction. Time after time after time, on issue after issue after issue, on program after program after program, and always in the name of the public interest, people rise on this floor and say, "Yes, I am for a balanced budget. But in the long run, my amendment will so strengthen the economy that the investment is worth while, even though, in the short term, it works against a balanced budget."
I have heard that argument so many times that sponsors of those kinds of amendments do not have to make them for my benefit any more; I can make them and save the time.
All I know, I say to the Senate, is that we have to learn to say no. It took us 3 days of hard negotiations to raise $5 billion more revenue, in the majority leader's office; 3 days. Here, with one amendment, we are going to spend more than $5 billion in the same 10-year period. We cannot go that way toward a balanced budget, Mr. President. We just cannot.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PERCY. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. PERCY. Did he say this will cost $5 billion?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator heard me. The Senator's original amendment was $5.89 billion. So, as a result, he cut it to 4 years, which is $1.1 billion. But then, in his remarks, he made it very clear that he would like to see the policy extended throughout the decade to 1990, even though his amendment does not provide for it.
I say to the Senator, once we get this on the books, come 1984, extending it through the decade will be done on the unanimous consent calendar some day on a very innocuous bill, and we shall have it for 10 years. So if we put it on the books today, you can bet your boots that the ultimate price tag for the decade is going to be $5.89 billion.
Mr. PERCY. How much time does the Senator from Illinois have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 3 minutes and 49 seconds.
Mr. PERCY. I should like to make the record very straight. The original amendment of the Senator from Illinois did cost $5 billion. This amendment costs $1.1 billion. The Senator from Illinois said — and I shall review the transcript — that it will be his hope that after 4 years experience, it will be proven so cost-effective that we shall want to extend it.
There is the case. We have to have some proof. The Senator from Illinois is confident enough of this amendment that he is willing to shorten the time period and not ask for the 10-year credit, but ask only for a 4-year trial credit. If that 4-year trial credit proves so effective, then of course I will try to advance it. If that is the case, I am sure the Senator from Maine, on the basis of experience, will vote resoundingly and affirmatively to support that position.
But the cost of this amendment let us make it clear, over a period of 4 years, would be $1.1 billion, a fraction of the Government's cost of the per-barrel equivalent of synthetic fuel.
I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia.