May 1, 1974
Page 12616
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move for a division of the question between section 205, relating to orderly decontrol and standby authority, and the rest of the bill.
Mr. TOWER. The rest of the bill? Mr. President, would the Senator clarify that?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Excuse me. The rest of Calendar No. 746, which is the Muskie- Stevenson-Johnston amendment. I move for a division of that amendment between section 205, relating to orderly decontrol and standby authority, and the rest of the amendment which is Calendar 746.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. TOWER. Is the amendment divisible without unanimous consent of the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is divisible on demand if it technically can be divided.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. TOWER. Can the amendment be technically divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inquire of the Senator of Maine if there is anything in section 205 which when separated from the rest of the amendment cannot stand alone.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say there is none. I discussed this matter earlier with the Parliamentarian, and it was his judgment, on the basis of our analysis of the bill, that it was divisible.
I concur in the request.
Mr. TOWER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amended will be so divided.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on each of the two parts.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. TOWER. Does the ordering of the yeas and nays bar a motion to table?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it does not.
Mr. JOHNSTON. It does bar a motion to table on both of the separate parts at one time.
The PRESIDING OFFlCER. The ordering of the yeas and nays does not bar it, but it would be out of order to table both under the same motion.
Mr. TOWER. Would separate tabling motions be in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Separate tabling motions on each as so divided would be in order.
Mr. TOWER. So only tabling motions would be in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment, the Chair cannot judge what might be in order. There might be a further division, or there might be other motions.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, a short explanation, I believe, is in order, for the action just moved for. There are essentially three parts to the MuskieStevenson-Johnston amendment. There is, first, authority for monitoring the economy. Second, there is authority to enforce commitments already in effect. Third, there is authority for standby wage-price controls. The demand I have just made is to separate standby control authority from the rest of the bill.
Frankly, I anticipate that some Senators on the other side of the aisle and some on this side of the aisle will join in a motion to table both parts or either of them. But we believe that all three parts of the bill are of extreme importance, subject to a motion to table the standby control authority, but not have it affect the monitoring authority, or vice versa.
Just a brief word about what standby authority provides, because there is a great deal of misinformation in the Senate, I think, relative to standby authority.
The standby authority contained in this amendment does not provide the President with unrestrained authority to control wages or prices. All it does is to allow the President the authority to control wages or prices in a given sector, provided three factors are present: First, if there is inflation in the economy as a whole; second, if there is serious inflation in that particular sector which can be moderated by controls; and third, if the imposition of such controls would not restrict supply.
So the President would have to make those findings as to all three factors. But he would have to publish his findings in the Congressional Register before he could impose the controls that are authorized by the bill. It is not a general scheme of wage and price controls; rather, it is a rifling authority to give the President only that authority which is clearly needed and which would prove clearly to be effective under the circumstances of the act.
In the several weeks of hearings which were held in the Subcommittee on Production Stabilization, of which I was chairman, we heard no opposition to the enforcement of the commitments already given. We heard essentially no opposition to the monitoring authority. The whole opposition has been to the standby controls authority.
I want it clearly understood that the standby authority is not the kind of broad, pervasive authority or a continuation of wage and price controls that some have said the bill involves.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, it is sometimes difficult to know where to begin on a bill like this, but I shall start with the letter that was introduced into the RECORD as a part of the comments of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. STEVENSON) from Mr. Dunlop to the Senator from Illinois, in which Mr. Dunlop said he assured the Senator, and obviously Congress, that if we gave him standby authority, he would modify their program – I read his words–
To insure equity of treatment between wage earners in the health industry and those comparatively situated in other sectors of the economy.
This is the day after the expiration of controls. Why did he not do that before? He goes on to say:
As you know, it has been my position that the health industry should be removed from the purview of economic stabilization.
This is the qualifier–
As soon as national health insurance legislation is enacted, specifying a cost-construction program.
In so many words, if we pass any form of standby controls, we have the implicit assurance of the Director of the Cost of Living Council that everybody in the health field will still be covered by wage and price controls regardless of their economic impact.
He points out, in addition, that if wages have to go up because of the minimum wage standards, their budget would obviously have to be raised. So he would undertake a review of the budget in the health field – nursing homes, hospitals, rest homes, and so on. He said that such a review could be conducted by June 1 in order to promulgate them not later than July 1.
Now, come on. What is he really saying to us? First, they are going to keep the health people under control. Second, he grants that inequities that wage earners employed in hospitals and nursing homes have been suffering have severely disadvantaged them under the current program.
But that is not going to change the current program. He grants that the budgets of hospitals are going to be severely impacted by the minimum wage legislation passed by Congress. He thinks that the earliest they might do something about it is July 1.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROCK. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I invite the Senator's attention to remarks at the outset of the consideration of the bill, in which I stated that based on the testimony before the Subcommittee on Production Stabilization, I did not believe the health care industry would be eligible for controls at this time under the terms of the bill. First, because there is no present serious inflation in the health care field which is causing a serious deprivation or serious hardship. That is an absolute requirement.
In other words, it is not sufficient unto the bill that serious hardships and serious deprivation have occurred to cause controls to be removed. Nor is it sufficient to say that if we took off controls, we would have that kind of inflation. But rather there must be, under the bill, present serious hardship and serious deprivation. They are not present.
There were other reasons why the health care industry would not be eligible under the bill..
But in my judgment, based on the testimony, they would not be eligible for control.
Mr. BROCK. As the Senator knows, I have great respect for him as a person and as a legislator. He is remarkably effective and assured. But I can only say that his amendment as drawn would be implemented and interpreted by the administration, and not by the Senator from Louisiana. And this letter tells me that they do not read it the way he does.
This letter tells me that they are going to continue controls of hospital employees, nursing home employees, doctors and nurses, and the entire healthcare system of this country, until, in his words, "national health insurance legislation is enacted." And even then, national health insurance has to, in his words, have a cost constrained program, and that is to me the real question: How do we deal with the fact that they interpret the bill differently from the Senator,. and they implement it?
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, I would suggest that he would have a good bit more influence with this administration than I.
Mr. BROCK. Not on this matter, because we do not agree at all on the economic policies of the administration.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROCK. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. As a matter of fact, is it not true that the principal objective of Dr. Dunlop was the power to control health services?
Mr. BROCK. That is correct.
Mr. SPARKMAN. As a matter of fact, he asked for only two, as I recall: Health services and construction.
Mr. BROCK. I have, and will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the plea of the National Protestant-Catholic Hospital Action Committee that standby authority be abandoned, because they know of the intention of the administration and Dr. Dunlop in this area.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC HOSPITAL ACTION COMMITTEE TO MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
We have come to Washington today to urge the Senate to reject the Muskie-Stevenson-Johnston amendment to S. 2986 and any other bill which would extend the Economic Stabilization Act and grant the Administration discretionary authority to impose price controls on selected sectors of the economy. All of the economy should be equitably regulated, or none of it.
There should be no question about what is involved in the vote on the Muskie-Stevenson- Johnston amendment. A vote for that amendment is a vote to impose price controls on the health care industry, and in particular hospitals, but not on other sectors of the economy. Hospitals are not the cause of inflation; they are the victims of it. Any action by Congress that has the effect of singling out the health care industry for price controls will seriously impair the quality of health care provided in this country. It will unfairly limit the wages of the dedicated men and women who care for hospital patients.
The Action Committee represents hospitals operated by Catholic and Protestant religious organizations throughout this nation which provide approximately 200,000 hospital beds, or nearly one-half of all hospital beds provided by non-profit hospitals in the United States.
The health care industry, including in particular hospitals, is one of the few major sectors of the economy currently under Price Control Regulations. The Price Control Regulations applicable to hospitals which the Cost of Living Council has promulgated are unfair and continue to be a major threat to the quality of health care in this country.
Despite the vigorous efforts of the Action Committee, COLC has prohibited hospitals from raising their charges as necessary to recover their increased costs. Yet hospitals have suffered from inflation. Their costs are in large part determined by factors they cannot control. The cost of food and drugs, for instance, has increased sharply, yet hospitals must continue to supply food and drugs to their patients. Unlike private industry, nonprofit hospitals have a public responsibility to continue to provide unprofitable services – such as emergency rooms. Moreover, hospitals have a legal duty to comply with doctors' orders for patients' treatment regardless of the cost.
Despite these unique characteristics, which make it far more difficult for a hospital to control its costs and its net revenues than other sectors of the economy, the COLC has refused to permit hospitals to increase charges as necessary to recover increased costs. Instead hospitals have been. limited to increases of specific percentages which are substantially less than the current rate of inflation.
Consequently, numerous hospitals have been forced to operate at a loss as the direct result of Price Control Regulations, and to reduce the quality of patient care, to compensate for their loss of revenues. In effect, therefore, COLC has mandated that hospital patients, who are at the end of the chain of consumption, absorb the nation's inflation. Hospital suppliers can increase their prices to hospitals and increase their profits to the detriment of the quality of care provided the nation's sick.
COLC's Regulations, therefore, are unfair under the present circumstances. Yet the problems hospitals have already incurred under price controls would be aggravated if the Administration should be granted standby authority to impose price controls on any sector or sectors which it may determine requires such controls. For the Administration has testified in plain terms that it plans to control only the health care industry, and that it will permit the rest of the economy to be uncontrolled. It would be grossly unfair and unworkable to regulate the health care industry in such circumstances:
This is particularly true since the price regulations would, as we mention above, not permit hospitals to raise their prices as necessary to recover the increased costs they will incur because the remainder of the economy, including particularly hospital suppliers, will be decontrolled and be free to raise their prices without limit.
For this reason we urge you to vote against any grant of authority to the administration to provide selective standby controls. Moreover, to mitigate the unfair effect of any selective controls, should such legislation be enacted, we urge you at least to support an amendment which would permit firms, including hospitals, to recover at least their increased costs. Otherwise more and more hospitals will be forced into loss positions, and will be forced to reduce the quality of care they can give their patients. We cannot believe that the public interest is served by granting the Administration authority which will have that effect.
Respectfully submitted,
National Protestant-Catholic Hospital Action Committee
By Sister Myra James, S.C., Penrose Hospital, Colorado Springs, Colo.
Sister Mary Kieran Harney, R.S.M., Mercy Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa.
Thomas E. Callahan, Catholic Hospital Association, St. Louis, Mo.
Gaston Herd, Administrator, Fort Hamilton-Hughes Memorial Hospital Center, Hamilton, Ohio.
James P. Streitz, Administrator, St.: Elizabeth Hospital, Danville, Ill.
James P. Richardson, President, Presbyterian Hospital, Charlotte, N.C.
Sister Mary Brooks, C.S.C., Administrator, St. Johns Hickey Memorial Hospital,. Anderson, Ind.
William R. Furrey, Asso. Administrator, Memorial Hospital, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Charles D. Phillips, Ed. D., Executive Director, American Protestant Hospital Assn:, Chicago, Ill.
Sister Mary Maurita, Sengelaub, R.S.M., Executive Vice President, The Catholic Hospital Association, St. Louis, Mo.
L. R. Jordan, President, Baptist Medical Centers, 3201 4th Avenue South, Birmingham, Ala.
Mr. BROCK. The Senator from Louisiana says he is a friend of the small businessman, and I believe him. He says he is a friend of the working man, and I believe him. I believe that those who share his feeling on this amendment have that same motivation.
But there have been times in my life when I have said, "Deliver me from my friends," and in this particular case I think there may be some small business people and working people in this country who would feel the same way.
When this proposal was before the Banking Committee, it was defeated by a vote of 11 to 4. We not only defeated this measure, but went on to defeat the administration's bill by a vote of 15 to 0. The House committee rejected the same proposal 21 to 10.
Every witness – every one – testified against an extension of controls. The fact that controls do not work leads one to the conclusion that the worst possible can of worms that could be perpetrated on the people of this Nation would be to lead them to believe that the rapid inflation we are presently experiencing could be contained through an elaborate system of economic controls, even on a standby basis.
Not only will that fail to contain inflation, but the American people will never put up with the serious dislocations which will be brought about if controls are continued indefinitely.
We have controls now. The proponents of this amendment have made my argument, because we have had an escalating rate of inflation under controls. They talk about a 14.5 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. That was not after controls, it was before they were taken off.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROCK. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not agree with the Senator's analysis of what produced the escalation in prices in the past year. It is not the existence of controls or the existence of control authority. It was the abandonment of meaningful controls in phase II.
Controls had worked up until that point. They worked to the point of reducing the annual rate of inflation from something between 4.5 percent and 5 to 3.6 percent.
No one quarrels with the record on that point. We had disagreements with the President about some applications of control authority, but it was not the existence of controls that produced inflation; it was the abandonment of controls.
The Senator says we make his argument. We do not at all. We disagree with the theory that the existence of controls led to inflation. And we do not contend that the enactment of this legislation would necessarily control it. What we are saying is that we are not willing to let all control authority lapse on the assumption that there are no conceivable circumstances under which we would find it useful to have this kind of authority at hand to use.
Second, we believe, and we are joined in the belief by a number of eminent economists, that a rational phaseout decontrol, which the Cost of Living Act would allow, can have some inhibiting effect upon inflationary price increases.
From where I sit, and from the point of view of the American citizens with whom I talk, any small relief from inflation would be welcome.
The reason I offer this proposal is because I cannot see us moving into a period of unrestrained inflation without any authority in existence at any level of government to deal with it efficiently under any conceivable circumstances.
I understand, of course, that a majority of the Banking Committee has expressed disagreement on this point. I do not normally advocate bypassing such a capable committee. But, we disagree with the vote they took. I have merely described my own motives and rationale. I simply wanted to respond to the Senator's suggestion that he was articulating our rationale. He was not at all.
Mr. BROCK. Well, Mr. President, despite my affection for the Senator, I could not more
thoroughly disagree. Controls have resulted in incredible dislocation in this economy. They have created shortages, unemployment, and loss of jobs and property without due process of law, without protection to the individual, the family, the company, or anyone else; and I find it difficult to understand how we can go before the people of any State of this country – certainly I cannot in Tennessee – and justify to them a continuation of a policy which has literally clobbered the working people of this country. In the last year, they have lost almost 5 percent of their real income, not as a result of their own lack of effort, not as a result of lack of productivity, but because the Government of this country imposed restrictions on the production of this country, impeded the processes of the market, and made it impossible for them to compete.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, is the Senator saying to the American people that his policy of abandonment of all controls will bring inflation under control, and that there will not be, for the remainder of this year, shrinkage of earning power such as they have already experienced? Is that what the Senator is promising?
Mr. BROCK. I am saying this: that you cannot interfere with the workings of the marketplace without jeopardy. You cannot limit the right of the American worker to compete, to produce, without jeopardizing his job. That is happening today.
If you want to talk about throwing in the towel, the administration and the last administration did that years ago. We saw the signs. We saw the gold flow in 1970, and did nothing but window- dressing to hide it. We did not inhibit the gold flow to Germany. We did nothing.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is not answering my question. I asked what his policy would produce in terms of increased prices, continued inflation, continued shrinkage of income, continued instability of inflation, of employment, of production, and continued shrinkage in the value of the dollar.
Mr. BROCK. My policy, in the last 4 or 5 years, would have produced a whole lot less inflation than controls, I will tell you that. If we turn the American people loose they will produce.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator saying that by the end of this year prices will be stable and there will be no more shrinkage of incomes? What is the Senator saying?
Mr. BROCK. The Senator is not saying that. Every witness who came before our committee testified that inflation would continue at an unbelievable rate. Some said as low as 7 percent, some said as high as 12 or 15 percent. Everyone said we would have continued inflation. I
asked each witness in turn, "What would happen if we leave controls on? We are going to continue to have inflation. What happens if we do take them off? It will continue. But if we take them off, we can produce and get a supply in the marketplace to give the American housewife some chance to buy a product on the shelf. Ultimately the marketplace will reduce supply. If we leave controls on, there will be no chance for the marketplace to respond. We will not deal adequately with inflation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then the Senator would leave the problem to the marketplace?
Mr. BROCK. No. I would avoid the horrible price freeze by the Senator's amendment on standby controls, which are the most inflationary of all devices, that forces people to respond in anticipation, out of a desperate fear that the Government will reimpose on them, so that they will raise prices. Just wait until you get rid of them.
Mr. MUSKIE, If the Senator is not going to leave it to the marketplace, what is he going to do?
Mr. BROCK. I have been fighting for a long time in for Congress to reestablish its own controls. The. Senator from Maine has shared in that fight with me for budget reform.
Mr. MUSKIE. But budget reform will not take effect until 1976.
Mr. BROCK. Then let us speed up the process and deal with the fundamental imperfections in Government instead of worrying about something else. Let us put our own house. in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. With regard to budget reform, the Senator is a member of the conference committee. Does the Senator expect to be able to change that and make the change in that legislation to implement budget reform before 1976?
Mr. BROCK. I would be delighted to do so.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am asking the Senator again, does he propose to leave this problem to the marketplace between now and 1976?,
Mr. BROCK. I believe in supply and demand in the marketplace. I would remove all impediments to production by the American people. They should be free from controls. We should make Congress do the job as well as the American people.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator proposes to do is to permit the Economic Stabilization Act to rest in peace, let the controls die, and leave the rest of the problem to the marketplace. I am simply trying to get the Senator's policy
Mr. BROCK. I do not want it to rest in peace, I want it to die a violent death.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to make that point clear – and it is not clear from what the Senator is saying – that what he is proposing as a policy is to leave it to the marketplace. Is that correct?
Mr. BROCK. I would propose a policy for this Congress and the administration to be more responsive than it has been in the 11 years that I have served here, to do their job responsibly as we should do it and not try to do the American people's job for them. Let them produce. They produce. We do not produce things of value here. Let us get off the backs of the American people so that they can produce.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator means leaving it to the marketplace then?
Mr. BROCK. Leave it to the American people.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the marketplace.
Mr. BROCK. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. And not to Government policy?
Mr. BROCK. I would get off the backs of the American people.
Mr. MUSKIE. If there is to be no Government policy, then what is the Senator's policy?
Mr. BROCK. To have a constructive fiscal impact on the part of the Government but not to have us interfere in their policy. That is what the Senator is proposing, that we interfere with the right of the American people to produce.
Mr. MUSKIE. Every time I ask the Senator what his policy is, he gives his description of mine. Mine is clear. I am inquiring as to what the Senator's policy is and every time I ask him whether he is leaving it to the marketplace, he says, "Oh, no, no, no. We will have a policy." But, what is it, Senator?
Mr. BROCK. I would leave production in this Nation to business. I would leave it to the free enterprise system, to the people who constitute it. I would not interfere with the free working out of that process. I would establish a much more rational policy, had I the votes in Congress and in the administration. That is where our responsibility is.
Mr. MUSKIE. At the moment, the Senator has no policy, no Government policy at all. Is that what I understand correctly?
Mr. BROCK. Oh no, my policy is to remove Government impediments to production by the American people – all Government interference, all Government control, all Government restraints on freedom to produce. That is my policy.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is going to leave it to the marketplace with no policy to deal with unpredictable circumstances
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield to me now?
Mr. BROCK. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. All I want is some clarification. If I misstate the Senator's policy, I would want it clarified. But, once I understand it, I am going to analyze it with as little mercy as the Senator treats my policy. I want to understand it, because I would not want to misstate what the Senator's policy is.
Mr. BROCK. Make no mistake about it, I do not believe the Government is competent to run American business. It never has been and it never will be. I do not think we are competent to make market decisions. I do not want the Federal Government running a gas station, much less the energy field, or to practice medicine on my children, any more than I want someone out of this particular body to do so. That is my policy. If the Senator does not understand it, I should like to restate it, that I believe in freedom of the marketplace and in the capacity of the American people to produce, without restraints or impediments placed on them by the Government.
I now yield to the Senator from Texas.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, may I say that the proposal by the distinguished Senator from Maine is simply a cosmetic application. It is not a program. As a matter of fact, probably its worst effect would be to cause an expectational effect on business and labor and this would result in a rise in prices and wages. That would be worse than no policy at all. A policy, even the one by the Senator from Maine, would do nothing to control the worldwide efforts to control the inflation that we have.
Mr. President, we have debated this in the committee, and in the subcommittee, and we have debated it here on the floor of the Senate. There has been a great deal of talk about it. There has been debate in the conference of the two respective bodies. Debate still goes on. More and more amendments are lurking in the background. We probably will not get anywhere in the House anyway, so that this is an exercise in futility even if we could get some kind of decent economic stabilization bill.
I point out, therefore, that I think if this debate is continued, during the course of time when controls have already expired, it will really precipitate some of the very things we are trying to avoid, and that is, an inordinate bulge in prices and wages.
Therefore, we must take a surgical approach to this matter. I do not like to gag anyone, but here has been considerable debate on this matter, and therefore, I move to table S. 2986.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that for a moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCLURE). The question is on agreeing to the motion
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana will state it.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana will state his point of order.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President–
Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that request for a moment? I may point out to the Senator that this is–
Mr. TOWER. I cannot hold it for long
Mr. MUSKIE. I have not had a chance to speak on this amendment yet today, so that I believe he would indeed be gagging someone. I am for limiting debate, if I could reach agreement with the Senator–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable.
Mr. TOWER. 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. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana will state his point of order.
Mr. JOHNSTON. There has been a division of the question between section 205 of the bill and the rest of the bill. I believe that a motion to table directed to the entire bill would be out of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The division was on the amendment. The motion to table is on the entire bill. The motion to table is in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Chair kindly repeat his parliamentary ruling?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The division was on the amendment. The motion to table is on the entire bill. The motion to table is in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Earlier the Parliamentarian ruled that–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is to table the entire bill. The yeas and nays have been–
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say to the Parliamentarian that there was discussion on the floor earlier, so that we were given clearly to understand that we could have separate votes on a motion to table the two parts of the Muskie amendment.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would state to the Senator from Maine that the earlier colloquy and the earlier ruling was with respect to a division of the amendment. A motion has been made to table the entire bill. The earlier ruling on the motion to table was in response to a question concerning a division of the amendment, and tabling the amendment. The motion to table is to the entire bill.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not question the Chair or what the Chair has just said. The understanding was earlier that a division of the amendment would be in order. The Senator from Texas is within his rights to move now to table the entire bill.
I merely take the floor at this time to ask the Senator from Texas whether he would consent to withhold his motion to table the bill at this time and give the Senator from Maine a vote either up or down on his amendment or move, instead, to table the amendment and let the Senator from Maine have a vote on both parts, or on tabling both parts of his amendment?
Mr. TOWER. In response to the inquiry of the Senator from West Virginia, I do not feel constrained to do that because of the rash of amendments that I feel are going to be offered; and I am afraid that we are going to be in a position of putting together an awful piece of economic stabilization legislation. It would be "destabilization" legislation. I, therefore, reiterate my motion to table the bill.
Of course, if others want to debate this subject for days, perhaps even weeks, then they can vote against this motion. But I think that every segment of this economy wants controls to end now.
Therefore, Mr. President, I reiterate my motion to table S. 2986.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his motion for another minute?
Mr. TOWER. I will withhold it for 1 minute, with the understanding that I do not lose my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I have a suggestion which would allow the Senate to vote on tabling both titles of the amendment and also the bill, without intervening amendments. It would simply be this: that we get unanimous consent to vote on a motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Maine, the vote to occur on tabling, the price and wage control part of it first, immediately followed by a vote to table the monitoring part of it, to be immediately followed by a vote on tabling the bill, with no intervening amendments allowed to come in. There would be three votes to table, back to back. The Senator from Texas would then accomplish his purpose, and the Senator from Maine would also achieve his goal.
Mr. TOWER. I respectfully say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia – and I think he knows that I have generally been disposed to be cooperative with the leadership on these matters – that, as a matter of legislative judgment, I would prefer to pursue my original motion to table S. 2986, and I reiterate it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator grant me 30 seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I call for regular order.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas allow the Senator from Maine to speak for 2 minutes?
I ask unanimous consent that, without the Senator from Texas losing his right to the floor, the Senator from Maine be allowed 2 minutes to make his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. TOWER. Provided that my motion will still be in order in 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I simply make the point that I was willing to agree to a total of 2 hours to debate the whole bill. The notion that we are going to debate this measure for days is simply not based on facts, as the Senator from Texas knows.
This is the first time in my experience in the Senate that the offeror of an amendment has been denied, by this kind of gag-tabling motion, an opportunity to speak on his own amendment.
I urge the Senate to oppose the motion to table.