March 25, 1980
Page 6509
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, we have heard much talk today about "bloated bureaucracies" and "bloated budgets." We have heard that the American people expect this and that the American people expect that.
Well, I like to think that I can listen to the people, too.
I also like to think that I was elected by the people of West Virginia not only to listen, but to talk straight, to frame the issues, and to tell it as I see it.
It is my belief that this year, the Senate will enact a balanced budget for the next fiscal year, 1981. I am fully and firmly committed to supporting a balanced budget.
I know that this task is not an easy one. I know that some of my constituents are not going to be entirely happy with some of the spending cuts in ongoing programs that are going to have to be made if the budget is to be balanced.
But think that they understand that some bitter medicine is going to have to be swallowed for us to get a handle on inflation.
The substitute offered by Senator MUSKIE — which I am cosponsoring — is not soft on inflation. It is bitter medicine. It calls for a balanced budget.
The substitute does not ignore the proposition offered by Senator ROTH and others on the Republican side of the aisle.
The substitute calls upon the Budget Committee to report — not only a balanced budget — but also to report the specific reductions which would be required to achieve the level of Federal outlays which Mr. ROTH would recommend — namely, Federal outlays which do not exceed 21 percent of the gross national product.
Is this approach not a more reasonable one?
We have a budget process. We have a Budget Committee composed of Democrats and Republicans. If the substitute amendment is adopted, and I hope it will be, the Budget Committee will, next month, present to the Senate not only a balanced budget, but will also present a report on the magnitude and nature of cuts which would have to be made in order to meet the Roth formula.
The Muskie approach does not make promises which cannot be kept. It does not foreclose any options. it is realistic and it is responsive to the very real economic problems facing our country.
The Roth resolution would arbitrarily limit Federal spending to a percentage of GNP. This approach flies in the face of rational fiscal policy. It is pro-cyclical.
When the economy is booming and the GNP is high, the limit allows Federal spending to increase, thus fanning inflation. When the economy is soft, with the GNP stagnant or falling, Federal spending must be reined in, thus slowing the economy further.
(Mr. MORGAN assumed the chair.)
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. So, Mr. President, I was somewhat amused at the reference by the distinguished Senator from Delaware to "poorhouse economists." Mr. President, the party that knows about "poorhouse economics" is sponsoring this resolution. I lived in the days when we had the poorhouses. I remember that the Democratic party brought the people out of the poorhouses and eliminated the poorhouses.
As to poorhouse economics, this pro-cyclical pre-1930 proposal that is being advanced by the Roth resolution is straight out of the school of Herbert Hoover, who promised two chickens in every pot and two automobiles in every garage. That was poorhouse economics.
Mr. President, the American people are not going to be fooled by mirrors. The distinguished Senator from Delaware has referred to the amendment by Mr. MUSKIE and others as a "cup of poison." Mr. President, the American people do not want snake oil, and the Roth resolution, with all due respect, is "snake oil" economics, "snake oil" politics.
I was glad to hear the Senator say that we ought to quit playing politics. Well, let us do that. Let us reject the Roth resolution and we shall be doing just that.
Let us not be fooled by the mirrors. The distinguished Senator from Delaware talks about sending signals. Let us send that signal today. Let us adopt the Muskie resolution, reject the snake oil, and get on with the business of balancing the budget.
Mr. ROTH talks about guts, courage. Ah, wait until we start balancing the budget. We shall then see where the guts and the courage and the signals are. That is what will send the signals to the American people. That is where the men will be separated from the boys. Then we shall understand what courage means — when it comes to making the selective cuts to balance the budget.
Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. It does not require courage to vote for the Roth resolution. It is nothing more than a "quick-fix" political gimmick that fixes nothing.
I do not believe that the American people are interested in grandiose schemes or "quick-fix" solutions. We are a practical people.I like to think of myself as a practical. person. I see a lot of sense in voting for an amendment which is practical, realistic, and achievable. I see a lot of sense in supporting an amendment which will substantially reduce Federal spending and call for a balanced budget, and thus help to stem the tide of inflation.
A balanced budget will not only reduce inflationary pressures, it will reduce the level of Government activity in many areas. It will reduce the size of the Federal budget in comparison to gross national product.
So let us not be fooled by mirrors. The American people will not be. A vote for the substitute language is not going to be viewed by anyone as a vote for a "bloated bureaucracy" or for "big government" — for a very simple reason. That is not what it is, that is not what it does.
This fact is going to be made very, very clear as we move on authorization and appropriations bills. The cuts necessary to balance the budget are going to be felt across the land. There will be no mistake about the fact that balancing the budget is not a painless exercise; the pain will be felt in every State and every community.
But this is the right time for this decision. Inflation is a tax upon everyone — on the rich, but even more so on the poor, on the middle-income wage earner, and on the elderly living on fixed incomes.
So let us not kid ourselves. The Muskie amendment is not soft on inflation. It is not soft on big Government. It is not soft on anyone.
But it is important, it is honest, it is realistic, and it is achievable.
And let us not kid ourselves on what is happening here today. Those who introduced or cosponsored the Roth resolution have known for weeks what the ground rules were. They participated in setting up those ground rules. There are no "quick-fixes" or "parliamentary surprises" being perpetrated here.
Both the proponents and opponents of this Roth resolution have equal rights under the agreement which we reached. Both proponents and opponents of the Muskie substitute have equal rights.
And if the Muskie substitute is adopted, the American people will have gotten the signal, the signal that the budget is to be balanced and a signal that if a surplus can be achieved, tax cuts then may be in the offing.
That, I think, Mr. President, is the signal the American people ought to get.
If the Muskie substitute is adopted, it will not be adopted by ''parliamentary tactics"; it will be adopted because a majority of Senators voted against the tabling motion and voted for the substitute. It will be adopted because a majority of Senators, after due consideration — and after comparing the proposal of Mr. ROTH and the proposal of Mr. MUSKIE — will have decided that Mr. MUSKIE's approach is a more fair and rational approach to our budgetary problems.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the substitute amendment, and I urge that the motion to table by Mr. ROTH be rejected.