December 5, 1979
Page 34658
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President. will the Senator from New York yield me 15 minutes?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield such time as the Senator desires within the 79 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at the outset I would like to alert the Senate to the fact that the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Delaware and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is subject to a point of order under section 306 of the Budget Act. I think that ought to be made a matter of record.
Section 306 reads as follows:
No bill or resolution and no amendment to any bill or resolution dealing with any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget of either House shall be considered in that House unless it is a bill or resolution which has been reported by the Committee on the Budget of that House (or from the consideration of which such committee has been discharged) or unless it is an amendment to such a bill or resolution.
Under that section of the Budget Act, Mr. President, the Roth-Domenici amendment is clearly subject to a point of order.
I understand that the distinguished Senator from Delaware has said he would seek to have the Budget Act suspended under section 904 of the Budget Act. He is choosing that procedure because his amendment is concedely subject to a point of order.
So what he chooses to do is what he has sought to do before, whenever he finds the constraints of the Budget Act uncomfortable or restrictive, he seeks to suspend it.
Now, Mr. President, there have been recourse to section 904 before. The interesting thing is that not once has it been proposed to suspend section 904 in order to reduce spending. Always section 904 has been invoked either for the purpose of increasing spending or cutting taxes — whatever the budgetary impact of cutting taxes would be which, in this case, would be to create deficits.
There are two ways to create deficits: increasing spending or reducing taxes. The chart I have just put on the easel indicates how the Roth amendment, in the red, relates to the budget resolution which this Congress approved just 2 weeks ago. That budget resolution, as all Members of the Senate will recall, was designed to achieve balance in 1981, permit a tax cut of $55 billion in 1982, and more thereafter, and to follow the policy line laid down by Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon in a sense-of-the-Congress resolution which was part of the tax law of 1978.
In my statement on the windfall profit tax bill last week, I put before the Senate a chart which projected the budget demands of the eighties, taking into account those policies which I have just described briefly.
Mr. President, I have listened to the debate, and I am not sure that at this point the substance of the amendment is that important since we are caught up with the prospect of one of two, or both, procedural motions. But I think it is important to devote some observations to the substance.
In the first place, the Roth amendment is not a tax-cutting amendment.
Indeed, it is framed in the language of a budget resolution, and that is why it is subject to a point of order — because it says:
For each fiscal year ending after September 30, 1980, the total budget receipts of the Federal Government shall not exceed an amount equal to the following percent of the estimated gross national product for such fiscal year: 20.5 percent in fiscal year '81; 20 percent in fiscal year '82; 19.5 percent in fiscal year '83, and thereafter.
Mr. President, if we should adopt this amendment and if the House should adopt it and it became law, the taxes of the taxpayers of this country would not be reduced by a single nickel, not by a single nickel. It would have to be implemented — unless we were to suspend the Budget Act permanently — first by a revision of the congressional budget which covers fiscal years 1980, 1981, and 1982; and, second by the tax-writing committees developing the tax legislation which would reduce revenues to the policy line mandated by the Roth amendment. So this does not cut a nickel of taxes for anybody.
If Senator ROTH wishes to modify the budget floor for revenues, the congressional budget resolution which covers the 3 fiscal years 1980, 1981, and 1982, is the place for him to offer this budget amendment; that is all this amendment amounts to.
If we adopt it, Mr. President, what then do we do about the budget resolution we adopted last week? Let it stand? Is that what we do? Or do we bring it back to amend it in accordance with this mandate?
I mean, obviously, since the revenue implications of the budget resolution are different from the revenue implications of this amendment, if this amendment became law we would have to find a way to resolve the inconsistency — that is, unless we adopt this thing in utter cynicism or for political expediency. So we would have to bring the second budget resolution back.
Mr. President, I do not look forward to opening up that can of worms. Senator DOMENICI knows, because he was a member of the conference between the House and the Senate, the difficulties we faced in producing a second budget resolution. To go through the exercise again could find us moving into calendar year 1980 without a congressional budget, and maybe that is the way the sponsors of this amendment would like it. Let me repeat, maybe that is the way they would like it.
Now, there is another alternative, Mr. President.
Let us say we are going to be expedient and cynical, so we leave the second budget resolution with its revenue assumptions, and we adopt the Roth amendment as the law of the land, allowing both of these inconsistent revenue policies to stay on the books. All right. Now we come to the budget markup next spring. Which revenue assumption does the Budget Committee follow: The second budget resolution, which was the Product of the regular budget process, or the Roth amendment? Which one?
I can envision the debate in the Budget Committee over which of those two options should be chosen.
But let us say the Budget Committee decides that the Roth amendment, being the most recent expression of congressional intent, "We will follow that."
Now, what will that require us to do, because the tax-writing committees cannot implement this tax reduction unless it is reflected in the budget resolution for the year to which it applies, unless you want to suspend the Budget Act permanently?
If, then, the Budget Committee says, "The Roth revenue line is the one we will implement," what would that require us to do?
Mr. President, if we were to balance the budget in fiscal year 1981, Senator ROTH's revenue amendment would require a cut of at least $18 billion in outlays below the level in the second budget resolution. Where could we get that $18 billion? I assume that there are few, including the sponsors of this amendment, who would wish to take the cuts in defense or energy programs, so we cannot get it there. The total increase in outlays between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1981 is $52.9 billion. If we remove defense and energy programs, the increase is $35.8 billion.
Apart from defense and energy, there are very few new programs assumed in the budget.
Moreover, the second budget resolution estimates, other than defense and energy, assume almost no allowance for inflation except where mandated by law.
Furthermore, the budget resolution totals assume substantial savings through legislation to reduce the cost of existing programs. Senator DoMENICI knows this. I assume all Senators do. Virtually all of the $35.8 billion of nondefense, nonenergy increases between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1981 is required to cover growth in programs that are indexed to inflation by law, and outlays that result from commitments made in prior years.
So the only way, Mr. President, that we could achieve the savings of at least $18 billion that would be required is to make cuts in existing programs above and beyond those already mandated by the second budget resolution.
Surely I do not need to remind any Senator just how hard that would be. We have not yet achieved most of the savings assumed in the second budget resolution, much less $18 billion more. The prospects for achieving savings already mandated are clouded at best. We will simply not get the savings already mandated for fiscal year 1981 if we do not start now to achieve savings in fiscal year 1980.
Mr. President, while I hope Congress will work hard to achieve the savings mandated in the resolution, I see little prospect of achieving savings of at least $18 billion more than planned. So the bottom line of the Roth amendment is a substantial budget deficit in fiscal year 1981. Let no one misunderstand that-
Oh, I have listened to the general rhetoric here this afternoon about "All we need is the will to reduce that appetite for spending; all we need is the determination."
Mr. President, I have been involved in the budget process as Budget Committee chairman for 5 years now, and I have tested that will over and over again. I remember when the Senate Budget Committee this year brought a budget resolution to this floor which was wholly in line with Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon — wholly in line, wholly consistent with that policy just laid out in 1978 — the Senate blew the whole thing by increasing defense spending by 3 percent in 1980, 5 percent in 1981, and 5 percent in 1982.
Now, was that increase in defense spending the reflection of that rapacious appetite for spending to which Senator DOMENICI likes to make reference from time to time? No. Of course not. He voted for that as a necessary increase.
I do not challenge that. But let me say to my good friend that what is necessary to him could be excess to somebody else, and what he regards as excessive spending on the part of others could be essential spending to them. That is the lesson that anyone who is a student of the budget process ought to understand — that we are not talking about thieves, but we are talking about our colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate who pursue their priorities. We are talking about people, by and large, who are deeply committed to their priorities. And where 2 or 3 years ago people were supporting cuts in the defense budget, times and circumstances have changed the attitudes to the point where 72 Senators against 19 voted for the increase in defense spending to which I have referred.
But, no, we are going to forget all that sort of thing in the future with this pending amendment. Never again, for good reasons or bad, are we going to be faced with the necessity to increase spending or to require additional revenues beyond some level that some Senator magically established 2 or 3 years before. That is never again going to happen.
Yet here already we are talking about a change that is being proposed within 2 weeks — within 2 weeks — of the adoption of a budget resolution which has been in process since last March 15th.
That budget resolution was just voted 2 weeks ago. Every Senator and every Member of Congress made a contribution to that resolution. The Budget Committees of both Houses devoted their attention to this resolution in conference for practically 2 months, brought it back to the floor, had to go back to the Senate Budget Committee in order to produce a new original resolution with a chance of passage, finally got it adopted by the House of Representatives, and now, within 2 weeks, we are going to change it.
Well, if things can change within 2 weeks, by what magic of vision do the sponsors of this amendment assert that they can predict what our revenue needs will be in 1981, 1982, and 1983?
We might be in war. There are no exceptions for that made here. We might be in deep recession next year, when revenues are going to drop automatically. Every 1 percent increase in unemployment results in a $12 billion reduction in revenues and a $3½ billion increase in recession expenditures. This could happen within the next few months. It took us almost 4 years to come out of the last recession, and we did not do it completely; we came down to 5.8 percent unemployment, but we are back up to 13 percent inflation, which threatens another recession.
If we follow these revenue policies set years in advance, we mandate a tax cut at a time of raging inflation and a national boom. Is that the right policy?
Is that the right policy? No, of course not. We should be wise enough not to mandate that kind of horrendous result.
Mr. President, my opposition to this amendment is, first, that it violates all the procedures that we have established under the Budget Act; second, it has the effect of undercutting the Congressional Budget Resolution which we adopted 2 weeks ago, after months of labor and effort; third, it puts in place the risky and dangerous public policy intended to hold come hell or high water; fourth, there is the bland assumption on the part of the sponsors that somehow, in defiance of all precedents and practices of the Congress, that we can cut $18 billion or more in outlays below the level of the second budget resolution for this year. I just do not see that being done. I do not see how it is possible.
Mr. President, it seeks to persuade us to abandon a policy that we thought was sound this year: A balanced budget beginning in 1981, with a big tax cut in 1982, and successive tax cuts and reduction in spending thereafter as permitted under flexible policy adjustment to evolving situations.
Mr. President, I believe that completes my comments on the amendment.
I would say, Mr. President, that I would make the point of order at this time, but I cannot because it cannot be made until all time has been used or yielded back. The motion to suspend can be made at any time. The sponsors of this amendment apparently are not interested in testing the procedural safeguards of the Budget Act. They prefer to make an end-run around them. That is their prerogative.
One could even propose to suspend the rules of the Senate. But the interesting thing is that in that case a two-thirds vote would be required. In the case of suspending the Budget Act, any willful majority can suspend the Budget Act for whatever politically appealing proposition may tempt them to do so. And the sponsors of this amendment obviously regard this amendment as appealing. It is the beginning of an election year and that is part of the American system, too.
So we are going to get a motion to suspend the Budget Act in due course, and that would be the first procedural motion. But I want the Senate to know that, as one who is charged with safeguarding the Budget Act, its procedures and its mechanisms, if I have the opportunity I will make the point of order.
The language of the act is so clear that I would expect it to be sustained. Then the sponsors of this amendment would face the task of appealing the ruling of the Chair. They, apparently, do not want to run that gauntlet. So we are going to move to suspend the Budget Act as though it is some routine kind of thing, without any serious policy implications.
Mr. President, I have been presiding over the Budget Act in the Senate since the act was passed in 1974. It is still very fragile. Despite the hold which it has on the habits and practices of this body, this body and the other body have broken loose from that discipline from time to time in ways which are truly disturbing. And every time that impulse arises it arises in response to what is perceived as an appealing, grassroots proposal — whether it is for spending or tax cuts or whatever.
Mr. President, the Budget Act is not strong enough to turn back the tide of an emotional public opinion, however unsound the proposition is. We saw it with respect to farm legislation. We saw it with respect to disaster legislation. We see it with respect to legislation impacting on any power constituency in the country.
There is no way for the Budget Act to resist that kind of emotional tide. And if we, ourselves, are the first to abandon procedural safeguards and expose the budget discipline to that kind of emotional public opinion, then we, ourselves, are contributing to the ultimate destruction of the budget process.
May I say to my good friends that if they set a pattern of routinely resorting to section 904 suspension, and it becomes routine, as far as I am concerned, the Budget Act is dead and I will want no further part of it.
Either a safeguard is a safeguard or it is not. There are ways for this kind of legislation to be properly considered and reported and reflected in the budget. This is not that way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Delaware.
Let me say to my distinguished colleague from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , that I believe he knows that there are few Senators who have more respect for the budget process as an instrument and who have voted for its conclusions, when they have been contrary to my own philosophy and ideology, than this Senator.
As the Senator knows, I voted for the first concurrent and I voted for the second out of conference and they were not consistent with what I thought was the policy that we should be following. So I have the same genuine respect for some discipline that the budget process has brought.
And the Senator need not have me remind him publicly of the tremendous respect I have for him, knowing that he has done the same; maybe for different reasons, with different philosophies and ideals about our National Government.
Well, let me say this: I do not believe it is fair to say that the Roth-Domenici mandate on this windfall tax bill will require that we call back the second concurrent resolution and start over. I have asked the legal question on that before I got involved here. I was told that, beyond 1980, those are targets.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not make it as a legal argument, nor did I make it as a parliamentary argument. I am just saying it does not make any sense.
Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Fine.
Mr. MUSKIE. It does not make any sense to have two different policy lines on the revenue target for 1981 on the books.
Mr. DOMENICI. I misunderstood.
Mr. MUSKIE. That does not make for a rational budget process.
Mr. DOMENICI. I misunderstood the Senator. I thought the Senator said that by this act we were going to require going through this process.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I said we would have to do that unless you are absolutely cynical about the budget process. I mean, what commonsense does it make for the Congress to have adopted a revenue line in the second budget resolution 2 weeks ago and for the Congress now to adopt a different one for the same fiscal year? If we have no respect for the budget process, then, no, we do not have to call back the second budget resolution. There is no legal requirement.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. But there ought to be some requirement in the mandate that the people be clear as to which we mean.
Mr. DOMENICI. Well, let me just add one point, and then I want to yield to Senator ROTH, who will express the economic concerns that back up this proposal which is, in our opinion, equally as significant as any process, because it has to do with where the American economy is going to go.
Everyone knows that the 1981 out year target figures proposed by the conference of the budget members says we are going to have a balanced budget in 1981. But I remind everyone that it has another very significant fact. It says we are not going to have a tax cut.
Now, I do not believe that is true. I do not believe we are going to go through the whole of next year without a tax cut.
And I do not believe that when the proposal is made, be it by President Carter in February or March, or someone else, that we have a significant tax cut, that the argument is going to be made that for 1981 anyone who would propose to change that before we go back through our budget process is violating the budget process in any manner at that time. I think it is going to happen.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Just let me finish and then I will yield for whatever remarks the Senator has.
As a matter of fact, everyone should know that the target year of 1981, which is not binding on anyone but which is living up to a commitment that we produce a balanced budget at some point in time, is outdated once we have passed this bill and once deregulation of crude oil is in effect, because on no one's chart does the revenue appear that is going to be generated in 1981, 1982, 1983, or 1984 from the episode of deregulation and this windfall bill. It is for that very reason that we were motivated to say that if there is going to be any discipline, we ought not leave that out there for people to look at in terms of a balanced budget and yet a higher level because we have more revenue than we expected.
I will acknowledge that at 20.5 percent of GNP in 1981 we are picking up a little more revenue than the new money that is expected to be generated from the windfall tax and the episode of deregulation.
I will also say that if there ever was an event that prompted us to do something different than we did 2 or 3 months ago, it is the full realization that for the next 10 years we shall expect well over $400 billion — some estimate $600 billion — in new corporate liability that will show up in taxes and the windfall. I submit that is an episode that has occurred that properly requires some instructions to the institution about levels of taxation.
I close by saying while it is not an event occurring on the floor of the House, the truth of the matter is that even those who are struggling with the Budget Act in the House — and its chairman — are coming to the conclusion that the only way to keep expenditures under control is to relate them to a percentage of GNP. He is proposing that it become firm and binding and part of the budget. That is the proposal he is hearing and exposing in the House of Representatives.
It seems to some of us that that is exactly the way we are going to get the kind of collective discipline that we so much need, the kind of tool to aid the Budget Committee to make the kind of judgments that we cannot make when everybody is bent on their program with the kind of enthusiasm that the Senator from Maine has said others have for their programs and I might have for military expenditures.
I might say to my friend, the Senator from Delaware, I truly compliment him for the service he performs in bringing this to the Senate. Whether it happens here tonight or in the not too distant future, the manner to respond to the American people will still be the same. Not for us to set them as part of the constitutional conventions or the people clamoring for it, but we will do it. I submit there will be a surplus if we do not do something about it, excepting that surplus will disappear in the enthusiasm for more Government.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from New Mexico that whether or not either of us supports the budget process is a question better answered by what we do than by what we say. We adopted a budget resolution 2 weeks ago and the Senate voted for it.
I assume this amendment was at least in the incubation stage at that time. Now, 2 weeks later, we see an amendment that will wreck that budget resolution.
Second, the balanced budget in 1981 was mandated by the Congress. Have we all forgotten the special legislation and the amendment that was offered to the debt ceiling bill in the spring when we were being pressed from that side of the aisle and from this side of the aisle to pay attention to the public demand for budgetary discipline?
In response to that, this Senate initiated the policy of a balanced budget in 1981. It did not come out of the Budget Committee. We were told to produce balanced budget alternatives for 1981 and 1982. The two options were that the balance would be first achieved in 1981 or, alternatively, first achieved in 1982.
We could have had a tax cut in 1981 if we had chosen the 1982 balance, and that option was presented in the Budget Committee — to have a tax cut in 1981. It was rejected in the Budget Committee in favor of balance in 1981.
When the Senator from New Mexico tells me that balance in 1981 is some illusion, some ephemeral ghost that came out of nowhere, I must respond that it is a policy of this Senate which rejected a 1981 tax cut. The vote of 11 to 3 in the Budget Committee is a fact. So balance in 1981 is a goal to which the Budget Committees of both Houses have committed themselves ever since.
Nobody in the Budget Committee since that time has challenged it. We have accepted it as the policy of the Congress and it was finally enshrined in the budget resolution of 2 weeks ago, to which Senator DOMENICI has told us he was committed and which he supported, only to abandon it 2 weeks later.
The Senator says, "Well, I do not believe there will not be a tax cut in 1981."
Well, there certainly will be if we abandon the budget process. It is an election year and by traditional standards we could expect a tax cut. But I have been listening to Senator DOMENICI and Senator ROTH and they tell us they are offering this amendment in order to change traditional practices, to make them more prudent, budgetwise.
How does the Senator manage to summon enough confidence in the implications of his amendment if he discards his confidence so easily with respect to the budget process which has had at least 5 years trial run? That has to be the pinnacle of cynicism, to expect that.
Mr. President, as far as I am concerned, nobody knows better than I the uncertainties that can face a budget maker and the changes that time and circumstances require. But I believed, and I thought the Senate believed, that the only way you could achieve discipline in this undisciplined body was to have a plan for doing so to which people of divergent views, philosophies, values, and priorities could make their fair contribution, and then accept the results.
The Senator says he has been voting for things that he was against. Does he think I have not?
I have from the beginning and I find myself standing almost alone in the process from time to time.
That is what is required of each of us, may I say to the Senator, not just the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Maine.
This process is not going to work just because I vote against my convictions and against a popular proposal. There has to be a majority of this body voting in that way, exercising restraint, in the overall interests of a balanced budget, budgetary prudence, and public confidence in this body. But if each of us yields in response to a current wave or tide of support for a popular idea, whatever it costs, we can forget about the budget process. We can forget about it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have read the release by the distinguished Senator from Maine and I have listened carefully to his remarks about the Roth-Domenici amendment.
Mr. President, I must confess I am surprised that I have not been accused of being responsible for the Three-Mile Island accident and the bubonic plague.
It is charged that the the Roth-Domenici amendment, if accepted, single-handedly would wreak havoc on the budget process, plunge us into irretrievable deficits, cause fiscal disruptions, erode investment confidence, and, God forbid, create widespread public disillusionment.
I am almost afraid to return to Delaware for fear of being charged with crossing State lines to incite a riot.
Mr. President, I could not more strongly disagree with the distinguished Senator from Maine. I point out that the whole budgetary process originally resulted from an effort of mine many years ago to cap the growth of Federal Government. I am a strong believer in it.
But I must also say that those of us who are not on the committee have the right to attempt to influence the budgetary process and are not required merely to accept on the Senate floor the recommendations of that committee any more than we are required to accept those of the Finance Committee, or others.
I point out that the chairman of the Budget Committee is really trying to balance the budget by allowing taxes to increase to the highest levels in this country's interests. The chairman of the Budget Committee has claimed that the current congressional budget contains the lowest level of spending in the last 5 years. But he did not mention that spending is going to be 21.9 percent of gross national product the fifth highest level in our history and substantially — substantially — above the historical average of 19.9 percent.
It has been claimed that our amendment would violate the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon-Roth amendment adopted last year. I point out that the current second budget resolution already violates that.
I wonder if it is recognized that the Nunn-Bellmon-Roth amendment sets limits on Federal spending of 20.5 percent for 1981, 20 percent in 1982, 19.5 in 1983.
The same limitations we would set on revenue under our amendment.
As I pointed out, the second budget resolution has already violated the Nunn-Bellmon-Roth- Chiles amendment by providing spending levels of 21.9 percent, the fifth highest level in the country's history.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROTH. No. I would prefer to complete my statement.
The Senator also claims that the Senate rules require him to raise a point of order against this amendment. If that is so, then why did the Senator not raise a point of order against the Nunn amendment last year, which set the same limits on spending?
What this amounts to is a parliamentary maneuver to prevent the Senator from having the opportunity of voting tax relief for the American people and to attempt to insure by that maneuver that there will be massive tax increases to finance the expansion of Government spending.
Mr. President, I applaud the fact that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee last week took to the floor to discuss revenue-raising measures. He pointed out correctly that this windfall profit tax involved more profit raising than almost collected in the original over 100 years.
I think he made a point that I would hope the American people fully understand, that this Federal Government is going to take another $1.5 trillion into its coffers and, if I understand what the distinguished chairman was saying, that these funds are needed for Federal spending programs.
Mr. President, many of us are greatly concerned about the plight of our economy. There is not a paper, magazine, or publication, that does not discuss the serious problems of this economy and that we are moving into a deep and serious recession.
We have seen article after article pointing out, among other things, that United States Steel is closing down plants, laying off 13,000 employees. We have seen that over 100,000 employees are being laid off in the automobile industry. We face the fact that the Chrysler industry may be going into bankruptcy unless the Congress acts. We are told we are not supposed to consider steps to correct this problem because of the procedures of the Senate.
What is happening? What is happening is that we are balancing the budget by raising taxes, exactly what was done 50 years ago. It did not work then and it will not work now.
It is predicted by the CBO that by the end of next year we are going to have over 8 percent unemployed. That means over another million men and women without jobs, and that is not going to achieve or end stagflation.
What we need to do, Mr. President. is listen to the advice and counsel of the Joint Economic Committee which has pointed out correctly, in my judgment,and headed up by a distinguished member of the majority party (Mr. BENTSEN) , that the only way we can work out of our problem of stagflation is by doing something about productivity, that we have to have more savings, more capital investments, so that we can produce more without inflation and create jobs in the private sector for those without jobs today.
I think this is a legitimate debate on the Senate floor. It is important that we recognize that we cannot discuss an energy bill that will bring $600 billion additional revenue into the Federal Government and not discuss what that is going to do to our economy.
The fact is that if we permit more of this revenue to go into capital formation in the private sector, the Joint Economic Committee — as I pointed out, headed by a distinguished member of the majority party — states that we face a declining economy, that the American people will have to do with less.
Maybe in the next several months, when we are facing these long lines of unemployment and we see stagflation continuing, when we recognize that the average American family is paying something like $926 additional taxes in 1980 and 1981, we will be glad that at least we had the courage to debate in what direction this economy should go.
Maybe it is only 2 weeks since we handled the second resolution. The procedures are not important. What is important is what happens to the American economy, what happens to the American working people, to their opportunity, to jobs.
I want to see this country a country where there is hope and promise, not the idea that we have to bring as much revenue as we can into the Federal Government and redistribute it, which adds nothing to productivity or meaningful jobs for the individuals who now are going without.
Mr. President, I understand, from what the Senator from Maine has said, that he would raise a point of order against the Roth-Domenici amendment. I intend, as is permitted under the Budget Act, to move for a waiver.
I move, in accordance with section 904 (b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to waive the provisions of titles III and IV of that act with respect to the pending amendment.
I point out. Mr. President, that what I am doing is in accord with and consistent with the budget procedures.
I point out that some time ago, in another waiver debate, the distinguished Senator from Maine stated that the waiver motion was "contemplated by the Budget Act as a procedure open to the Senate in order that it not be frustrated in exercising its will. It is not a waiver of the procedures. It is an exercise of rights that the Senate has under the procedures."
With that statement, I strongly agree. I have the right, as well as any other Senator, including those serving on the Budget Committee, to ask that a waiver be voted, so that we have the opportunity of determining in what direction this country is going to move.
I hope that Members of the majority side and the minority side will vote in support of this waiver, because I think one of the most critical decisions we are going to make on the Senate floor is how we try to move this economy upward.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 1 minute?
Mr. ROTH. I yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. As Senators contemplate the significance of this measure, or what it is we are and are not doing, I remind the Senate of two things.
The Senate adopted the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon amendment as part of a tax bill on this floor. It told the Budget Committee the collective judgment of this institution, the U.S. Senate, and it told them what the Budget Committee should do with reference to limitations on expenditures by Congress. That was readily accepted and heralded across this country as a tool, something that would aid us to accomplish what we had to accomplish.
Second, I repeat the words of the chairman of the Budget Committee when he told us here today that the reason why the 1981 budget came in in balance is that the Senate of the United States, agreed to by the House of Representatives, mandated in a debt limitation bill that in 1981 and 1982, with some options — told us what the collective judgment of Congress was.
Those are contemplated as collective aids to reach good goals. That is all we are doing here today — asking that, collectively, for 1981 and 3 years thereafter, we set goals which will assure that excess taxes that are coming to our Government will find their way back to our people.