December 5, 1979
Page 34662
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from New York yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I intend to move to table the motion by the Senator from Delaware, and I do it with apology.
Section 306 of the Budget Control Act 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.
Obviously, this amendment does not qualify, because it does deal "with any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget" of the Senate and it has not been "reported by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate." The Senate Budget Committee was not discharged from the consideration of such an amendment, because the amendment was not before the committee, in any event.
Now Mr. ROTH has moved, under section 904 (b) , to waive or suspend this provision.
Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine already has explained very clearly the budget implications of the amendment and the impact it will have on the budget and on the economy, and I am prepared to move to table the amendment by Mr. ROTH.
Does the Senator from Maine wish to address the comments of Mr. ROTH with respect to the Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon resolution, before I move to table?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I covered that earlier.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine or the majority leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York allow me 5 minutes?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would like to yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine, with the understanding that I then be recognized to move to table, by unanimous consent.
Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator seek unanimous consent?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think we want additional time. I am delighted to see the Senator from Maine have 5 or 10 minutes, but I object to it being handled in this manner.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to table the motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PRYOR) . 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 table the motion made by the Senator from Delaware to waive titles 3 and 4 of the Budget Control Act with respect to the pending amendment. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 49, nays 44.
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to waive the provisions of titles 3 and 4 of the Budget Act with respect to the pending amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.
Mr. CRANSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, our side is prepared to yield back the remainder of our time, if that is agreeable to the proponents of the amendment. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point is well taken. The Senate is not in order. The Senator will not proceed until order is restored. Senators will clear the aisles and retire to their seats.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I hope Senators will not leave, because Senator MUSKIE will make a point of order when the time has been yielded back or has expired, and once that point of order is disposed of, that will be the last vote or action tonight, if it is disposed of.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the Senate, by a vote of—
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we cannot hear the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from Delaware will please suspend momentarily. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the Senate would resort to parliamentary tactics to block a vote on tax relief for the American people. I am concerned that this vote means that the average American family is facing tax increases of nearly a thousand dollars, and the Senate is not even willing to vote up or down on such a tax cut bill.
What concerns me the most, Mr. President, is that we are just on the verge of a major recession.
As I said before this vote was taken, every day there are new reports of new unemployment, of more plants being closed down, of the fact that during the next several years the American people face a decline in their standard of living. I am distressed by the fact that, by our failure to wrestle with these problems of recession and declining productivity, we are dooming at least another 1 million people to unemployment. By this vote of a slim majority of five, we are saying to the American people that we cannot do anything to reverse the trend, to move this Nation into a new direction of opportunity, growth, and increased employment.
Much has been said about this amendment — Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate Chamber?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I intend not to seek further votes on this issue, but I do intend to yield some time to my colleagues who have done such a superb job of defending and expressing their support for this legislation. I wish to say that we shall bring this matter up again. The state of the American economy is too important to be defeated by a vote of 49 to 44. I will seek, time and again, to follow through on the recommendations of the Joint Economic Committee that we take steps, important steps, to promote productivity, to produce more products without inflation, and to create jobs in the private sector.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we do not have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment, the Senate is not in order.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from New Mexico may proceed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished friend from Delaware in his remarks, and sincerely indicate to the Senate that I believe—
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is making an important statement, and he cannot be heard. He is entitled to the attention of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will please clear the aisles. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I can only assume that everyone in this body who voted to table this important issue — because that is what you did — understands what has happened here today.
Basically, we have broken faith, in my opinion, with the American people. With a great deal of ceremony, at an appropriate time, the United States Senate voted in an amendment to a tax bill stating that we intended, in the future, including 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 — the years that are the subject matter of this amendment — that we intended to limit the expenditures of the Federal Government.
We very precisely pointed out the present. And then we all went home for an election.
And here today, in the absolute middle of the imposition of the largest single tax-raising measure in American history, we are breaking faith by refusing to even let this body vote on whether that is an important enough issue to come within the waiver provisions contemplated by the Budget Act. We are saying: "Table that. That is not important enough to vote on a waiver, the process for which is prescribed in the Budget Act."
I ask: When will there be an important enough issue? When will we have an opportunity to keep faith and to send a message to the Budget Committee, not only here but also the Budget Committees of the House and the Senate, that we intend that our law, which says these percentages will bind us on expenditures, likewise bind us as to what we will take from the American people in taxes? We do not even do that under current law. We would not have done it.
But today we will not even do it when we can expect $600 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years that we can contemplate in the budget that is before us in the 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 projections.
I say that we just do not want to face up to acknowledging that the people are entitled to this money, not us. I only wish we could have voted up or down, rather than table it, because I believe the very prescription in the process said if it is important enough, seek a waiver and let the body collectively vote on it.
I believe, indeed, this was as important an opportunity to seek a waiver as we will ever find for years to come.
I thank the Senator from Delaware for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has just voted to maintain the integrity of the Budget Act of the United States which is designed to produce a responsible and balanced budget in an orderly way. We have rejected an amendment that would provide a permanent deficit throughout the 1980's. This was a vote to have a deficit every year — more inflation, more irresponsibility in Government.
The Senate did its duty and it did so in response to the clear exposition of the chairman of the Budget Committee who wrote that bill and has defended that process come what may. This Senate and the American people should be proud of him. This Senator, a member of his committee, wishes to stand here and say so and hope that he will now respond to the remarkable observations that have just been made.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I did not really see the need for further talk after the vote was taken. I am more inclined not to talk than to talk. But I simply cannot let stand on the record — presumably as a summary of a debate that has taken all afternoon — the observations made by my good friends from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) and New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) and all of this indignation about promises we made that are unkept.
Mr. President, we made a promise in the debt ceiling bill early this spring that we would balance the budget. And we wanted it balanced either first in 1981 or for the first time or 1982. The Budget Committees were mandated to produce those two options. We did.
The 1982 option would have permitted a tax cut in 1981. This Senate rejected that option. The other option mandated a balance in 1981. This Senate resoundingly approved that option.
The Roth amendment, according to the best figures that are available to us, would have changed that balanced budget in 1981 to a deficit in 1981. And the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) talks about breaking our word. We gave our word that we would seek to balance the budget in 1981.
Secondly, Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon: The Budget Committee produced a budget resolution which met the requirements of Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon.
I said that earlier this afternoon and I have since heard either Senator ROTH or Senator DOMENICI cite the facts as otherwise. We produced a budget resolution that kept our word on Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon. And what broke it? An overwhelming vote in this Senate on the second budget resolution, joined in by Senators ROTH and DOMENICI, to increase defense spending by 3 percent, 5 percent, and 5 percent. That threw Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon out the window. That is the Senate's prerogative.
But to blame the breaching of Nunn-Chiles-Bellmon on the budget process and the Budget Committee when it was the Senate itself by a vote of 72 to 18 that did it, to me, is the ultimate in rhetorical cynicism.
We have done our best to meet the commitments this body has made in the name of the budget process all this year. We produced a budget resolution that this Senate and the House both approved within the past 2 weeks, and that budget rejected the commitments that you had mandated us to meet. And now in the name of keeping our word, we break that word.
We approved the budget resolution within the past 2 weeks. This Roth amendment was surely in the incubation stage in that period. I did not hear the subject raised at the time the second budget resolution was on the floor or any proposal to amend it. I did not hear a word about that.
And then I come in here today and I am belabored with distortions of the record, with abuse of the budget process — a vote that came close to setting a precedent which, if followed, if it becomes routine, can destroy this process. No, one precedent does not, I recognize that. So the precedent is minimized by those who want to establish it.
But the motion to suspend the Budget Act has never been made in the name of decreasing the deficit or reducing spending. It has always been made in the name of increasing spending or increasing the deficit by such means as this. And that is the danger.
Once it becomes easy to get a suspension of the Budget Act, once it becomes easy — all of us know how the pressures to increase spending originate. They originate at the grassroots, among the farmers, among the veterans, among taxpayers who would like a tax cut; among taxpayers who see that an increase in social security tax is coming.
Suspending the Budget Act can become as routine as unanimous consent agreements, which have the effect of suspending rule XXII. And we do it every legislative day in the year.
Once the budget process becomes subject to that kind of temptation, it is gone. That is why I fight for procedural things like this.
Do you think I do not like to vote for tax cuts? What are you, nuts?
There are obviously reasons why a majority voted this procedural vote against a tax cut. Do you think you fellows over there are the only ones who understand that a tax cut in an election year is a popular thing to do? Do you think we do not realize that, too?
But there is such a thing as the integrity of the procedures we establish to convince the American public of something they are seriously in doubt about now — our commitment to budgetary integrity. Every time there is an opportunity to take the politically attractive and expedient proposition, the Budget Act trembles on its foundations. And one of these days, it is going to collapse because of that temptation. That is why I oppose the Roth amendment.
There is a proper procedural way for trying to do what Senator ROTH tried to do by suspending the Budget Act today. He has not pursued that route. Where was he when the budget resolution was up for consideration in the spring? He has got another opportunity next spring if he wants to do it the right way. I cannot guarantee him majority support. But there is a way to do it that does not violate the budget process — that does not undo the budgetary task that we finished this year.
Why do you not use it and not force your colleagues in the Senate to resort to procedural votes in order to prevent an improper use of the Budget Act?
May I say to the Senators I have no desire to continue. I am sorry I have continued as long as I have. I cannot make the point of order until time has expired or has been yielded back. I am ready to make the point of order as soon as that parliamentary situation exists.