December 10, 1979
Page 35246
Mr. ROTH. Yes. I just wanted to point out, I say to the leader, that it is not my intent or those of us who are cosponsors, which include Senator STONE, Senator DOMENICI, Senator DANFORTH, Senator DOLE, Senator MCCLURE, Senator WALLOP, Senator PROXMIRE, Senator WARNER, Senator ARMSTRONG, and Senator SIMPSON to be irresponsible. I noticed in the Washington Post yesterday that the distinguished majority leader did say that by offering my amendment last week, if I correctly understand the statement, it was somewhat demagogic and irresponsible.
I hope that that was a misquote because, as I pointed out earlier, I feel that when we are talking, as we are on a windfall profit tax, about substantially raising revenue, particularly when it is raised by the chairman of the Budget Committee that we need these funds for future Government spending, it is proper and appropriate for those of us who disagree with that approach that we offer alternatives.
I also point out to the distinguished majority leader that other Senators on both sides of the aisle are offering amendments that would cut taxes. One amendment is being brought back under unanimous consent to deal with a problem of interest, to deal with a problem of promoting savings. So I think if it is appropriate for those from the majority side to raise such issues through amendments it is only proper for the minority side to do the same.
I regret as a practical matter that my amendment was not voted up or down, as I think the Senate should have done, but it was necessary to resort to parliamentary tactics to block a direct vote.
That particular amendment, which would have capped revenue along very much the same lines I am capping spending this year, lost by five votes.
As I pointed out in my earlier statement, several Senators had indicated that they did not like to cap revenue unless something was done on spending. What I am pointing out today is that this amendment we are offering which will cap spending along the same lines of the Nunn-Bellmon- Chiles-Roth amendment of last year does have the effect, of course, of dealing both with spending and revenue.
That is so because any revenue unnecessary for these limits will either have to be returned to the taxpayer in the form of tax relief or can be used to reduce the national debt, both of which I believe are desirable goals.
Mr. President, I am ready at any time for a vote on my motion for a waiver. I yield back the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HEFLIN) . The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. President, I find it a bit surprising that my good friend from Delaware should look upon the point of order which is enshrined in the Budget Act as somehow a denial of parliamentary rights on the part of Senators to vote on the substance of their amendments.
Mr. President, there is very little discipline or enforcement discipline built into the Budget Act. A majority of the Senate at any time can upset any recommendation of the Budget Committee, any provision of a budget resolution. There is no extraordinary majority required. Indeed, under the first budget resolution, which the Congress approves in the spring, Mr. President, there is absolutely no discipline except the discipline of information that can be brought to bear upon enforcing the targets of the first budget resolution.
The only discipline written into the Budget Act is the point of order against violations of the Budget Act or budget resolutions under that act. What is the point of order? The point of order is a red flag provided for by the Budget Act to put the Senate on notice that the proposition before it is in violation of the congressional budget process.
Now I gather my good friend from Delaware, if he had his way, would abolish the point of order under the Budget Act, and deprive it, denude it, of all disciplinary force at all. If it is not improper somehow, impolite, discourteous to use the point of order when it properly lies with respect to an amendment of my good friend from Delaware, well, surely, it ought to be used. If it is not proper to use it against his amendment then it is not proper to use it for anybody, and what little discipline is left in the Budget Act goes out the window.
So I must say, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Delaware was a member of the committee that wrote the Budget Act. We discussed at great length what kind of discipline we could write into the Budget Act, and I recall the distinguished Senator being in the forefront of those who argued that even a point of order was not strong enough discipline.
But when now that anemic kind of discipline is applied to an amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware somehow that is improper. It denies him the right to an up or down vote on his amendment.
Mr. President, the point of order is an anemic enough source of discipline. We ought to protect the budget process against the surge of emotional propositions, popular propositions, created on the threshold of an election year. It is anemic, but we need it. Indeed, stronger discipline than that is needed. I am sorry my good friend from Delaware is all for talking about the need for budget discipline but totally opposed to the procedural safeguards that we have to enforce budget discipline. What is budget discipline if it cannot be enforced?
With respect to the amendment we have before us, let us look to the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon amendment to which frequent reference has been made over the past couple of weeks, Mr. President.
The distinguished Senator from Delaware refers to my discussion on budget demands of the eighties a few weeks ago as an argument for greater spending in the eighties. I have heard twisted arguments before, but that one beats most of them.
The fact is, Mr. President, that that presentation tested the achievement of Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon goals, which include a limitation of outlays as a percentage of GNP of 19.5 by 1983, and a balanced budget.
The fact is, Mr. President, that the Senate Budget Committee produced a budget resolution for fiscal year 1980 which was completely in line with Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon, completely in line with it. But then what happened on the floor? A proposal was made on the floor to increase defense spending by 3 percent in real growth in fiscal year 1980, 5-percent real growth beyond inflation for fiscal year 1981, and 5 percent in 1982.
The distinguished Senator from Delaware voted for that. The distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) supported that. The distinguished Senator from Florida (Mr. STONE) voted for that increase, and that blew those targets.
Now, what happened to all this holier-than-thou commitment to outlays as a percentage of GNP?
That commitment was not yet a year old when they voted to break it. And yet these three Senators argue today that it is such a simple matter to set a spending percentage and then somehow automatically spending will be reduced.
What is involved is not the merits of defense spending or any other categorization of defense spending. The fact is that at the first opportunity they voted to breach their own ceilings.
Now, 21.0 of GNP is the outlay limit the distinguished Senator from Delaware suggests for fiscal 1981. It is not enough to accommodate the increase in defense spending for which he voted last month. Then the percentages decline to 19.5 percent of GNP in 1984.
What is the situation with respect to the second budget resolution? For fiscal 1981 our outlay ratio is 21.2 percent of GNP, and the pending amendment is 21.0. For 1982 our ratio is 20.4, the pending amendment is 20.5, which is higher. For fiscal 1983 our number is 19.6, the pending amendment is 20.0 which is higher. For fiscal 1984 our number is 18.8, the pending amendment is 19.5 which is higher.
Mr. President, you always know when it is near the end of a congressional session. First, Congress adopts a binding budget resolution for the year. Then a few weeks later someone proposes to rewrite it, and that is what the Roth amendment would do. It is subject to a point of order.
But there is something a little bit different about this attempt to rewrite the congressional budget.
The Roth amendment would authorize significantly greater spending than the congressional budget contains. That is right. The Roth amendment would spend $41 billion more than the congressional budget over the next 5 years. I suspect that fact comes as a surprise to the cosponsors of the amendment, but it is a fact, and there is no denying it.
The Roth amendment contains limits on spending higher than those in the congressional budget for 1982, 1983, and 1984. Only in 1981 would the Roth amendment contain lower spending than Congress has already planned, and those reductions would probably have to come out of defense, since that is where the Senate voted the 1981 increase.
This amendment illustrates why the budget act provides a point of order against writing budget resolutions on nongermane bills. These budgeting-on-horseback, shoot-from-the-hip budgets seek to short circuit a year's hard work by Congress on its own budget. Drafted over a weekend, as this one was, their sponsors seem to believe they can see the future and plan for it more clearly from some corner of the Senate cloakroom than the rest of the Congress after thorough debate on two budget resolutions in the course of a full year.
So it should come as no surprise that sooner or later an amendment like this one which purports to cut the budget actually would increase it.
In fact, it might interest Senators to know that the spending limits in this Roth amendment are different from others he proposed last week on December 6 in S. 2090, a separate bill; different from others he proposed 11 months ago, in S. 34; and inconsistent with the tax limitation amendment to the windfall bill he offered last week.
If both the Roth tax limitation and spending limits bills were enacted and followed, the budget would be in deficit in 1981, 1982 and 1983, when taxes under the tax limit bill would fall $14 to $18 billion each year below the spending authorized by the Roth spending limit.
That is what I call consistent budgeting; that is what I call prudent budgeting, when the author of both amendments, a week apart, proposes to write into law budget deficits of that magnitude, in the name of fiscal restraint.
Mr. President, I believe these vigilante attempts to make multi-year budgets on nongermane bills are foolish and destructive. That is why the budget act provides a point of order against them.
I do not question Senator ROTH's desire to cut the budget. But I do question the four contradictory formulas he has introduced this year to do it.
For example, last Wednesday he offered an amendment to limit taxes to 19.5 percent of GNP in 1983 and 1984. The next day he introduced a bill to allow spending to rise to 20 percent of GNP the same years. That would produce a deficit of at least $18 billion in 1983 and at least $20 billion in 1984 compared to his tax limit of the day before. Now, 3 days after that bill, he offers an amendment which would allow more spending than taxes in 1981, 1982, and 1983 than last week's tax limitation. Today's Roth budget would produce deficits of at least $14 billion in 1981, $16 billion in 1982, and $18 billion in 1983, compared to his tax limitation proposal.
The Roth amendment would also allow more spending than the sense of the Congress resolution adopted as part of the Revenue Act of 1978. That 1978 act, in its so-called Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon amendment, calls for a limit on Federal spending $14 to $18 billion lower each year than today's Roth amendment. So the Roth amendment would authorize more spending than either the current congressional budget or the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon amendment to the 1978 Revenue Act.
I must, however, note one area in which Senator ROTH has outdone the budget process.
Congress labors all year long to produce just two budget resolutions, which we hope will help steer a sound and consistent economic course. Senator ROTH has produced three different budgets in 6 days, surely some kind of a record for variety, if not consistency.
So I would say to my fellow Senators, if you like variety, if you love spending, if you want deeper deficits, vote for this week's Roth budget amendment. If you want to uphold the budget process and its lower spending totals, vote against the Roth budget amendment.
And I say to those Senators who vote for the Roth budget, if it loses, do not despair. Congress still has 2 weeks to go, plenty of time to consider several more new budgets.
Mr. President, I would like to state what seems to me to be a very simple fact: These numbers reflecting outlays as a percentage of gross national product are a very simple ratio betwen outlays and gross national product. Now, Mr. President, if we should adjourn today without enacting a single additional spending bill, and then in December, or what remains of December and January, the gross national product plunges, as it did in 1974, then spending as a percentage of gross national product would rise. I repeat, without Congress having voted, without a single additional penny appropriated, if gross national product should decline, spending would rise; because, with higher unemployment, the cost of unemployment insurance would rise as an entitlement under existing law.
So you can adopt an amendment calling for a certain level of Federal spending as a percentage of the gross national product, but there is no way for it to hold down the forces of the economy.
Indeed, what you really ought to do — and I really recommend this to Senator ROTH, so that he may do the complete job — is, first, write into this bill the unemployment rate that he is going to maintain by law for fiscal year 1981, whatever it is, and the inflation rate.
If he does those things, and manages to write a law that effectively implements those two economic assumptions, and then in addition to that writes into the law money supplies and interest rates in order to reflect monetary policy as well, then he might have some chance of assuring that the GNP, which is the denominator in his equation, would be consistent with his pending amendment.
Mr. President, obviously you cannot write the performance of the economy into a piece of legislation. And apparently Senator ROTH's perception of the economy varies from day to day over a 6-day period, because he has produced three different budgets in that period.
I do not pretend to that kind of expertise. But I know that you cannot do it that way; and I know, finally, Mr. President, that the congressional budget process has done well in limiting spending in the next 4 years, and even better than the pending Roth amendment.
So, Mr. President, the Roth amendment is as much subject to a point of order as his amendment of last week. In due course, I will make that point of order; but I gather that Senator ROTH intends to move or has already moved to waive the budget process.
Mr. ROTH. I have made such a motion.
Mr. MUSKIE. I take it that will be subjected to a motion to lay on the table, and if the motion to lay on the table carries, I will then make the point of order.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to first make it clear that the Roth-Stone amendment does require additional savings over the second budget resolution.
Using the figures that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee used last week in his discussion of the budget and revenue needs, it was pointed out that in 1981 the projected GNP would be $2.8 trillion and under the second budget resolution the percent of outlays of GNP would be 21.4 percent.
What we are proposing for fiscal year 1981 is 21 percent, or a savings of 4 percent which, using those same GNP figures, would amount to $12 billion.
In 1982, the second budget resolution would spend 0.6 percent of the gross national product, whereas, my amendment would only permit 20.5 percent, or a savings of $2 billion.
In 1983 — and, again, I emphasize that I am using the same GNP figures that were used last week by the chairman of the Budget Committee — the second budget resolution would provide for 20.4 percent spending for outlays of gross national product, whereas, the Roth-Stone amendment would only permit 20 percent, a savings of .4 percent, or a spending restraint of $14 billion.
In 1984, the second budget resolution provides for outlays of 20.2 percent, in contrast to 19.5 percent in my amendment. That is .7 percent less, or a spending savings of $26 billion.
It is not accurate to say that the second budget resolution provides for less spending than the Roth-Stone amendment. Actually, we would save, in those 4 years, an additional $54 billion.
And I know that Senator Dirksen, years ago, said that a million here or a million there will soon add up to some millions, and maybe that could be said about billions. But $54 billion, even in these days of inflation and trillion-dollar economy, is a tremendous amount of money.
I would just like to underscore what those limitations of the Roth-Stone amendment would mean.
It would mean that there would be a budget surplus available, either for tax cuts or reduction of the national debt, of $25 billion in 1981, $24 billion in 1982, $34 billion in 1983, and $54 billion in 1984, which comes up to $137 billion that would be available in that 4-year period, either for tax cuts or for reduction of the national debt.
Mr. President, what we seek to do here is to make these limitations mandatory, to require the Federal Government and Congress to reorder the priorities of spending.
I, for one, think the American people do not expect us to continue all programs now in existence and to permit them to continue to be inflated by the percentage of inflation. There are few American families, working families, who will be so fortunate. Many hard working people, with both the husband and the wife working, in many cases the children working, are finding that they cannot even keep up with the increase in the cost of living. And, if they do, if they are among the fortunate few, then they find that they must pay higher taxes because of the progressivity of the income tax rate.
So the fact of the matter is that it makes no difference, they still have less purchasing power and a diminishing standard of living because of inflation. That is what we are trying to remedy. We are trying to change the direction. We cannot continue and permit every program.
I think most American people feel that we need a stronger defense and, perhaps, in order to do so, we are going to have to hold down another expenditure. I suspect a majority of American people, for example, would say we should spend less for foreign aid and more for defense in the interest of the free world, and that that would be a sensible reorder of priorities.
But I am not here to argue this program or that program, or how we should bring about this reordering of priorities. I am saying, Mr. President, that it is time we set the policy in the spending area in such a manner that we will take steps to again permit the economy to grow, for the standard of living of the American people to go upward and, of course, ultimately that means more income, not only for American people, but for the Government itself.
Mr. President, I yield back the floor.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will ask some questions, once again, to try to untangle the conflict that seems to appear here with the figures in front of us.
The Senator from Delaware knows I did not vote for his amendment that he had on the floor of the Senate last week. And, in my statements at that time, I believe he understood why I did not support him. I did not support him because I was convinced at that time, and I suspect that most people would agree — and maybe the ladies and gentlemen of the press might agree to print it — that had we adopted the amendment that was offered by the Senator from Delaware last week, we would have increased the deficit.
If I understand the Senator from Delaware at this time, and that is why I once again am trying to make a decision on this compatible with my feeling that it is critical that the United States of America balance its budget, his amendment may be in order.
And yet, when I first saw on the news tickers this morning the statement that the Senator was going to offer still a new approach to budgeting, I was very much intrigued with the percentages that he outlined at that time.
The press dutifully reported that the Senator from Delaware said that he will introduce an amendment this week that limits Federal outlays of 21 percent of gross national product in fiscal year 1981; 21.5 percent in fiscal year 1982; 20 percent in fiscal year 1983; and 19.5 percent in fiscal year 1984.
Mr. ROTH was quoted in this story as saying, "This would create a budget surplus which could be used either for tax cuts or to reduce the national debt." It went on to say, "By linking the windfall profit tax to a percentage of the Federal expenditures, instead of a percentage of the Federal tax receipts, as he did in his losing effort last week, ROTH hopes to gain enough support to win this time."
I say to my friend from Delaware that this is one vote that he has a chance to pick up. But I want to make sure that I understand what we are doing.
After I read this, I started doing a little calculation on the percentages which have been referred to. I listened to our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, with whom I have had the great honor of working on the Budget Committee, and, indeed, as the Senator from Maine has said we have worked hard and long on these things. But I certainly want to give credit where credit is due. At least in this instance, it seems to me the Senator from Delaware has backed away from his position I could not support last week because the position he offered to us at that time would have increased the deficit of the Federal Government.
There is not anything very much new about the fact, as has been brought out by the discussion here today, that indeed on our present course we will have budget surpluses that can be used beginning in 1981 to reduce taxes. I was hopeful that when we reached that point and after we reached it, after we were sure that we were not continuing to spend more money than we take in, then certainly that was the time we should reduce taxes.
I think the key and the crux of the discussion here today is whether the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware this week will indeed do what he maintains it will do, or whether or not it will do what the chairman of the Budget Committee says it will do, which is to simply increase spending.
Certainly, my calculations, after I looked this over, and after I read the usually reliable news report of this morning, would have indicated after my first realization that maybe the Senator from Delaware indeed had something here. I began to compare the figures. It appears to me that if we would adopt the Roth amendment, despite the fact that I share his concern for ever increasing appropriations, it might be that the chairman of the Budget Committee is right. I would hope that before we vote on this we would have a chance for further discussion between my good friend from Delaware and my good friend from Maine, who seem to be telling the U.S. Senate directly opposite stories as it affects spending.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. EXON. I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the issue being discussed has to do with what assumptions one makes about gross national product and what it will be in years that have not yet occurred. The estimates of what GNP will be in a given year are constantly being revised.
I have before me a table which apparently the distinguished Senator from Delaware used. It had to do with my discussion on budget demands in the eighties a couple of weeks ago which used estimates based on that table. The top line in that table is described as nominal GNP. The numbers for 1980, 1981, and 1982 are the base line assumptions in the budget resolution. The subsequent years in the table for the decade are simply an attempt to establish a trend line, without claiming to have a crystal ball, as to what the actual facts with respect to GNP will be.
Economic development is a cyclical thing. It is not a flat line or a straight line through a decade. It has high years and low years.
If you will look at the footnote at the bottom of that table, Mr. President, you will see the following words: Transition to the trend assumption — that is after the three base line periods — might entail a period of above trend growth in nominal GNP followed by a period below it or a gradual decline in inflation accompanied by another transitory phase of slow growth and rising unemployment.
So those numbers are simply an attempt to portray trend lines in order to put the budget picture for the eighties in the clearest perspective possible, taking into account the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon amendment.
The actual economic projection for the 5-year period that the budget resolution is based upon is somewhat more economically robust than indicated in the table. The table contains the three GNP figures for 1980, 1981, and 1982 from that actual CBO projection. The 1983 and 1984 numbers in the chart and those for the rest of the decade are derived from an assumption that Congress will reach the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon outlay and balanced budget targets not later than 1988.
If one were to use the actual CBO projections for 1983 and 1984, using the 5-year outlays assumed in connection with the second concurrent resolution, one would then get the GNP ratio like the 20.0 and so on I have previously described, lower than proposed in the pending amendment.
But in the meantime, may I say to the Senator, the Commerce Department revises the Government's GNP statements every year as new data is obtained and analyzed. This year, for example, fiscal year 1978, was revised from the $2,108 billion on which the budget resolution was based, to $2,128 billion. Such reestimates make a difference as to the ratio that you get.
Those numbers were not available at the time the Budget Committee made its report on the budget resolution. They were not available to Senator ROTH from that report or the table. I am not questioning his good faith. But they do make a difference to any projection of the ratio between outlays and GNP given the latest data on GNP for those 5 years.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this memorandum be printed in the RECORD so that Members may get that much more exposure to this esoteric art if they wish it.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., December 10, 1979.
MEMORANDUM
To Senator MuSKIE
From Susan Lepper and Cornelia Motheral
Subject Revised Basis for Projected GNP
The projections of GNP used as assumptions by the Senate in the Second Concurrent Resolution for FY 1980 were based on the estimates of 1978 actual GNP that were the latest available in June 1979.
Late in July, the Commerce Department carried out its routine annual revision of GNP data for the three previous years. These revisions incorporate tax return data and more complete surveys of economic activity. The level of current-dollar GNP in calendar 1978 was revised up by some $20 billion or 0.9 percent.
GNP projections are typically made in terms of rates of change rather than levels. The upward revision of the actual base therefore implies a proportional upward revision of projected levels in future years. The table below shows GNP for fiscal years 1979 through 1984 on a revised GNP basis, compared with the economic assumptions used in the SCR.
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. The fact is that the projections of the ratio between outlays and GNP will vary as the economic picture unfolds, as current and historical data are reestimated, as they will be the first of next year. So you will get different projections. That is why it is difficult, may I say to the Senator, to try to control spending by controlling that ratio.
The ratio is not the driving force; the ratio is the reflection of the outlays versus GNP. If either the numerator or the denominator changes, then the ratio will change.
Senator ROTH seeks to keep the numerator constant. That is he wants to keep the outlays constant or at some fixed level. But if, in the meantime, economic forces change the GNP denominator, that is, if the country is more prosperous, you will get a larger denominator, and you will get a lower ratio of Federal outlays to GNP. But if you have a recession, which everyone seems to be predicting, then the GNP denominator is going to shrink and the spending ratio is going to rise.
That is why this approach to controlling spending is simply not realistic. The GNP ratio is a measure of what you are doing or not doing, so it is a valuable guideline to policy, and if it starts escalating, you ought to know why. But the pending amendment is like trying to control sickness by breaking the thermometer. The thermometer does not cause the temperature ; it simply measures it. That ratio that the Roth amendment focuses on does not cause the spending, it simply reflects it as a proportion of GNP. As such, it is a very unreliable kind of control measure just as the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon was this fall, when the Senate sent defense spending up through the roof.
I hope that I have succeeded, at least somewhat, in explaining what I can personally say can be a very confusing issue.
Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I do.
Mr. EXON. What my friend fromMaine has just said about the measuring device that we are using here leads me to believe that the measuring device being used here is just as fragile as the measuring device that was written into that magical bill that I have heard so much about since I came here, known as Nunn-Bellmon.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. EXON. Yet, it seems that, since I have been here in the U.S. Senate, somewhere along the line, Nunn-Bellmon seems to have been written, a magical scroll, if you will, for spending in the U.S. Senate not unlike the New Testament is to Christianity. That is not necessarily so, if I understand the remarks made by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. I think it is an interesting benchmark to which we ought to do our best to adhere.
Mr. EXON. Does the chairman of the Budget Committee maintain what he said in his original statement, that if we adopt the Roth amendment, we shall be authorizing increases in expenditures over the positions currently taken by the Senate Budget Committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct, but it is conceivable — I cannot probe Senator ROTH's mind — that if he had had available to him the latest corrections of projected GNP, he might have come up with a different formula. That I have no way of knowing.
In any case, on the basis of the formula he has chosen and on the basis of the latest GNP figures, that is the case.
Mr. EXON. Would it be fair, then, to say that, on what the chairman of the Budget Committee knows now, he can honestly say that the amendment offered by Senator ROTH would then place us in a position not to control spending, but to increase it, if it were adopted?
Mr. MUSKIE. It would be a higher ceiling.
Mr. EXON. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I point out that the statement that the Roth-Stone amendment will result in more spending is just not true. We took the very figures the chairman of the Budget Committee inserted in the RECORD just 2 weeks ago, on November 27, 1979, at page 33592, the very figures that were adopted in the second budget resolution.
It is perfectly true that the estimates in these outyears are, at best, guesstimates, and you could try to change those guesstimates to make them prove whatever you want to. The fact is that the Roth-Stone amendment, again using the same figures as the second budget resolution, which is what this Congress is abiding by, would require a spending restraint of $54 billion more than the second budget resolution. The mandatory limits that would be imposed by this legislation would be the lowest ever.
The water can easily be muddied when we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. You can change the assumptions on which these figures are based and try to prove whatever you want, but the fact is that we are limiting the percentage; by 1984, it will bring it down to 19.5. We feel that by adopting these mandatory provisions, we, first, provide for savings and, second, create certainty in the budget picture.
I yield back the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I gather, if I understand what the good Senator from Delaware said, that, once the Budget Committee and the CBO have taken a reading on the state of the economy, that should be it for some indefinite period in the future and we have no right to reestimate and we have no right to make the computations that are necessary to bring our estimates and projections up to date, that we somehow have to be frozen into a period that is convenient for the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. President, let us just look at the ratios that we are talking about. Senator MAGNUSON, last week, proposed spending ratios for 1981, 1982, and 1983 which were 21, 20, and 19 percent, respectively. The Roth amendment, which is before us, has the same ratio for 1981-21 — but is higher, at 20.5 percent than MAGNUSON in 1982 and higher by 20 percent to 19 percent than MAGNUSON in 1983.
Then let us take the Jones bill on the House side. The Jones amendment proposes 21, 20, and 20 percent targets. ROTH is 21, 20.5, 20. The budget resolution is 21.2 for 1981, which is higher than ROTH, but then it is 20.4 for 1982 and 19.6 for 1983, which is lower than ROTH.
Is the distinguished Senator from Delaware arguing that I should apply my ratio to a different estimate of GNP than his so that his will result in lower spending, even though his ratio is higher? What kind of logic or nonsense is that?
He says that we should use the GNP figures that were in this 10-year trend chart, which was not a hard data chart for those 10 years; it is a trend chart. He says that he is using those GNP numbers from that chart. Well, if I use the same GNP figures, but if my spending ratios are lower — that is, the congressional budget ratios — then, obviously, they are going to produce less spending. I do not think any kind of twisted logic by the sponsor of this amendment can arrive at a different result.
If, on the other hand, he reserves the right to use his own GNP projection which, applied to his ratio, produces lower spending, then I think we have not an even ballgame. But I think those ratios speak for themselves, Mr. President, and I do not think further discussion is necessary.
Mr. ROTH and Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I shall take just a few moments. I am ready to vote, and I assume everybody else is.
We are talking now about an amendment which has been voted on by this body a number of times, as recently as last week, and defeated. I have generally been sympathetic to amendments which deal with indexing, because I have great empathy for the people of this country, who are losing their disposable incomes and who are not going to sit still forever with their incomes being eroded on the order of 5 and 6 percent per year. But I have never been convinced that indexing is a good solution. It has not worked in those countries which have tried to index inflation, and I am not at all sure it will work in the case of taxation.
Second, I have studied a little economics. As a matter of fact, I had a minor in economics in undergraduate school. One thing I learned was that the determination of the gross national product is a very imprecise science. It has only been a few weeks since the Treasury Department said there are $170 billion of transactions in this country every year which are unreported and on which no taxes are collected. Maybe we have been worrying too much about the low rate of productivity in this country.
Maybe productivity is not that low at all. If we add all that unreported income, it is possible that our productivity rate is equivalent to that of West Germany or Japan, the paragons of productivity.
There is a way to reaffirm the faith of the working people of this country that congress will not sit idle and see them destroyed.
We are talking about sympathy for, the people who are demanding a tax cut, people who are suddenly realizing how onerous the social security tax can be and how onerous it is going to be starting in January 1981.
We are sitting here now debating a bill that is going to levy, in effect, a tax of $100 billion to $300 billion a year on the American consumer, the same people we profess to be so concerned about now.
When the President decontrolled the price of oil, he took an action which, over the next 10 years, will force American people to pay $1 trillion to $3 trillion more for essential energy.
He is my President. I think he does a great job in most areas. I disagree strongly with him on that.
But that decision has been made. The President has asked the U.S. Congress, to keep faith with the American people by recapturing some of this $1 trillion to $3 trillion to alleviate the terrible burden that is going to be placed on them.
And who is it that says the House bill of $270 billion is too much? Who is it that wants to give everything to the oil companies in the name of incentive?
I find it inconsistent to say, "I want more defense, but I want a balanced budget." Those people want more of everything. They want a balanced budget and they want to produce synthetic fuels for millions of dollars, but they will not recapture any of this money, which the American people are paying, in order to balance the budget.
If we want to cut taxes, cut spending, Where are we going to cut it?
There is something inconsistent about this whole process, Mr. President.
Last week a few of us in this body voted against the Helms amendment to reestablish the deduction of the State and local gasoline tax. It was not a very happy vote, not for the Senator from Nebraska, not for the Senator from Maine.
I would love to go home and tell my people that we reinstituted it, even though most people do not itemize and get any benefit from it. But it was $43 billion in lost revenues.
If we want tax cuts and to balance the budget, we have to cut spending. If we want to cut taxes and lower the social security rate, tell me how to do it. Do we want the American people to have a tax cut and stand in this body and say in the same breath that we will levy $100 billion to $300 billion more against them?
The Roth amendment would not even begin to give the American people the benefit necessary to balance the burden which we are levying on them here by adopting a weakened, nothing windfall profit tax.
I stood here during the Panama Canal debate. It was not a very happy time for me because I voted for it. What did I hear from all those people opposed to it? "You are breaking faith with the American people. They do not want the Panama Canal Treaty."
Well, Mr. President, every poll I have seen says 80 percent of the American people want the stiffest windfall profit tax we can pass.
Why is it not applicable now? We all know why it is not applicable. We all know production of oil in this country will decline. Even the Senator from Alaska put a UPI story on everybody's desk this afternoon. It says that production will decline steadily between now and 1990, and I agree with that. I have said it all along..
So, Mr. President, I am in wishing to have a tax cut. I may even vote for an irresponsible tax cut one of these days because I want the American people to have it so badly but everybody cannot be irresponsible on the same day around here. So I will have to pick and choose the time. Somebody has got to be concerned about who is keeping the store.
So, tell me where we want to cut the spending. Do we want to take it out of defense?
The President says he wants a 100,000-man strike force that will cost an additional $9 billion over the next 5 years, above that 3-percent to 5-percent increase in real dollars we have been talking about, and I intend to vote for it. I intend to be for it. But I intend to be responsible about where the money is coming from.
Do we want a balanced budget? Then vote to cut spending.
We have to make up our minds. We either raise taxes or raise the deficit, and we cannot cut taxes and raise defense spending all at the same time.
We cannot help the American people when we say we want this tax cut for them and at the same time we wink and say, "But we will lay another hundred billion on you on top of this."
So, Mr. President, nobody in this body derives any pleasure from having to ride home and say to the folks that he voted for the tax increase. Nobody wants to say the social security taxes will go up precipitously in 1981.
If everybody had the good sense to have voted for my amendment the other day, we would not have to say that.
But as long as I feel the absolute necessity to be responsible and consistent about spending and about a balanced budget and defense spending, I must very reluctantly again oppose the amendment of the Senator from Delaware.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this Senator is ready for a vote and has been for a considerable period of time.
I know that a number of Senators have other demands on their time. I hope in the interest of expediting whatever other action is going to be taken tonight that we could have an immediate vote.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion for the waiver.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ROTH. As I say, Mr. President, I yield the floor and am ready for a vote now.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHILES) . Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the final disposition of the motion by Mr. ROTH to waive the provisions of the Budget Reform Act that there be a 20-minute time limitation on the amendment by Mr. STEVENS, the plowback amendment by Mr. STEVENS, to be equally divided between Mr. STEVENS and Mr. LONG, if Mr. LONG opposes the amendment, and if Mr. LONG does not oppose the amendment that I be in control of the time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in order to make certain I understand, and I did not intend to object, in the event the waiver is granted, it is my understanding that it would carry over until the time of the motion to reconsider or a motion
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. What I am saying is that upon the final disposition of the distinguished Senator's motion to waive the provisions of the Budget Act, that there then be 20 minutes for debate on the amendment by Mr. STEVENS, the plowback amendment, which is an amendment in the first degree, the time to be equally divided leaving open the right to — well, I see what the Senator is talking about.
If the motion to table the motion by Mr. ROTH to have the Budget Reform Act provisions is successful, that there then be a time limitation for debate on the plowback amendment by Mr. STEVENS limited to 20 minutes, which would leave open the motion to table. It would not waive any right.
Mr. ROTH. If the motion to table is not carried, I ask the distinguished majority leader what would happen then?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, I guess we would recess for the evening. [Laughter.] That is about as close as I can come.
Mr. ROTH. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object—
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object — and I shall not object — I did have a modification of my amendment at the desk. As I understand the situation, if the amendment becomes subject to a time agreement I could not modify it without unanimous consent. I will ask if the majority leader will permit me at this time on my reservation to modify my amendment. It would not change the situation with regard to the Senator from Delaware's amendment, but my basic amendment would just be modified.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been waiting for some percentages so that I could speak for about 2 or 3 minutes on the Roth amendment. If they do not arrive I would nonetheless like to speak for no more than 5 minutes.
As I understand it, you are preparing to lay down the order for the day. Could you provide before the tabling motion that I have 5 minutes?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield 5 minutes, that I may yield the floor for 5 minutes, to Mr. DOMENICI for the purpose of his making a statement, and then that I may be again recognized for the purpose of moving to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? As I understand, the majority leader is withholding his first unanimous-consent request?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I withdraw the request for the time being.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to get my little old modification. It reduces the credit to 50 percent, and it is drafted so that it applies only to those assets north of the Brooks Range. It is in the Prudhoe Bay area north of the Arctic Circle. It is a much more limited amendment than my basic amendment. I would like to modify that, if I can.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I personally have no objection, but I do not see any member of the Finance Committee on the floor just now. They are in the area. There is nobody on this side of the aisle, and I would prefer to wait, unless Mr. DOLE would change his affiliation and come over to this side of the aisle. Further I ask the distinguished acting Republican leader to withhold his request.
Mr. DOLE. I have no objection.
Mr. STEVENS. Very well. It will come up at the time of the time agreement.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield the floor under the previous understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for not to exceed 5 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the majority leader.
Might I say to my good friend from Maine that I was not here today when he made his entire argument, but I certainly would not want the RECORD to indicate that in supporting a statute, a law, that would mandate 21 percent of all GNP in 1981, 20.5 in 1982, 20 in 1983, and 19.5 in 1984, and I repeat, in voting for a national statute that would mandate that, I would not want anyone to think the Senator from New Mexico was, therefore, voting for more expenditures by the Federal Government rather than less.
I know the Senator clearly believes that is the case. But I would just like to explain to the Senate why I do not believe that is the case.
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. DOMENICI. I have only 5 minutes. I yield for a response. As the Senator understands I have not spoken today.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is no such conclusion. My conclusion is that trying to project GNP is such an imprecise and uncertain science that one cannot be sure as to what would be the result of either policy course. If you make the same assumptions then we can make hypothetical conclusions about which course represents the highest spending level.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Now let me say to the Senate, I recall the argument of the distinguished Senator from Maine with reference to a 1981 budget — and if I have quoted the Senator wrong, I would be delighted to yield the floor, but it seems to me that in past debates on the tax limitation, he indicated that we were mandated to come in with a balanced. budget in 1981, and therefore we did. Am I correctly interpreting the remarks that the Senator made?
Mr. MUSKIE. We were mandated by the Long amendment on the debt ceiling legislation to produce two options for a balanced budget. One was a balanced budget for the first time in 1981, the other a balanced budget for the first time in 1982. The second, of course, would have been a more liberal, expanding budget than the first; but both the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate opted for the balanced budget in 1981, and that is what the present budget resolution is based upon.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say to the Senate — and I am trying my best to state the law as it is — everyone should know there is no limit on the budget for 1981, 1982, 1983, or 1984 that relates, today, to a percent of the GNP, whether it is the percent that Senator ROTH proposes here today, or the percent that Senator MuSKIE extrapolates as being the Budget Committee's outyear projections. I repeat, there is no statutory mandate as to an exact percentage of the GNP, that expenditures must balance the GNP. There is no mandatory statute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Not at this point.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does not the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, and I will recite that. That is no mandatory statute. It says it is the policy of Congress that that shall be the case. There is no statute on the books that says, "When the Budget Committee goes into conference, here is a law that you measure your performance against, and it is a percentage of the GNP, fixed firmly by law."
It can be argued that the Senate Budget Committee, in its outyear projections, has same kind of percentages in it, and that they are in some way related to Nunn-Bellmon-Chiles. Incidentally, they break Nunn-Bellmon-Chiles in the first year, but nonetheless, there is no statute on the books now.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. In just 1 moment, I say to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. You have made that point at least six times, and I would like to respond.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to make the balance of my point, and then you can make yours.
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot respond in any way when you are making your argument. The Senate Budget Committee produced a budget resolution that tracks Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon all the way through.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes having expired, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized under the previous order.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent, since Senator MUSKIE has been using part of my time, for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield the floor for 2 minutes for the purpose of a statement by Mr. DOMENICI, without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished majority leader, and I thank the Chair.
The House does not have any outyear projections in its budget, and it seems to me that if we had a law, it would bind the House as well as the Senate.
Second, the House is considering a percentage limitation. I wonder why they are considering it, if it is totally ineffective.
I would agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee that the GNP varies over the years; there is no question about that. But we are trying to establish by statutory law a percentage of the GNP the Budget Committee can use in the outyears. I do not believe it is fair to say that a statutorily binding percentage is going to cause us to spend more than some outyear goal that is binding on no one, because there is no law to back it up.
That is the only reason why I have taken to the floor. I believe it would be historic, in fact absolutely incredible, in the light of the percentage increases every year with the budget process, if we could come up with 19.5 percent of the GNP, or whatever it is, in 1984, and I do not believe it is fair to find that that is an increase in expenditures, when it is being measured against something that is not a statute, not a law, nothing more than the sense of Congress, followed up by outyear projections of the Budget Committee that are binding on no one.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield me 1 minute? I have been patiently listening to this argument, and I would like to respond to it.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to yield the Senator 1 minute, without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am not saying that the amendment mandates more spending. It permits more spending. Here is the second concurrent resolution, in support of what I have said.
Moreover, contrary to the Senator's statement, the House has adopted outlay aggregates which reflect a budget limitation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment is not germane to the bill. This is not a general revenue bill. I wish it were; I might offer an amendment myself.
The amendment is not only nongermane to the bill, but a point of order would lie against it under the provisions of the Congressional Budget Act. Inasmuch as the Senator from Delaware has moved to waive the provisions of the Budget Act, he concedes that point.
We are going through the same motions as we did last week. It is really a playback. The amendment is slightly changed, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. We vote down a nongermane amendment, and then the authors come back the next day or the next week with more nongermane amendments just slightly changed, until it becomes really dilatory. I am not criticizing the Senator from Delaware for being dilatory, but when these same amendments, same procedures, and same motions come up over and over again, we are not making any progress on the bill itself.
So, with apologies to the Senator from Delaware, I move that his motion be laid on the table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the motion offered by the Senator from Delaware, pursuant to section 904(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, to waive the provisions of titles III and IV of that act with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Delaware.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The second legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 43, nays 40, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the chair.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President I make the point of order that the Roth amendment is out of order under section 306 of the Budget Act.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware contains matters clearly within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee in violation of section 306 of the Budget Act. Therefore the point of order is sustained.
The question recurs on the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska.