May 9, 1974
Page 14103
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think there is a somewhat new situation today in the speech of Dr. Dunlop. This morning, we had before us, in a joint hearing of the Judiciary Committee and the Government Operations Committee, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Stein, who also espoused the position that some monitoring agency was essential in respect to the future policy of this Government; that coupled with that, there should be emphasis upon Dr. Dunlop's prediction that inflation would be worse in the months ahead than it has been up to now, in a material way, giving figures.
I should like to ask a question of the principal author of the amendment in which I have joined. There is some concern among Members of this side, perhaps also on the other side, that a new agency established to deal with this matter would not simply be a prolongation of the Cost of Living Council, on the theory that the Cost of Living Council is thoroughly control-oriented, both in wages and prices, and, therefore, may unwittingly – but nonetheless may – be so dominated in its activities by its previous history that it would tend simply to be a conduit toward a situation which would demand renewal of price and wage controls.
I know the Senator from Maine; I know myself and others who are associated in this effort. I know we are acting in the utmost good faith. The Senate has repudiated the concept of standby controls. We will abide by the will of the Senate, not only in letter – which of course we must – but also in spirit. So I ask the Senator this question: May it be understood, and if desirable – and I think it is desirable – could it be locked in by a very brief amendment, because the Senator has taken care of all the mechanics of transferring personnel, papers, and so forth, in section 209 of his amendment, that we expect this to be a new agency established by the President? That will mean a revisiting of the advice and consent of the Senate by one of the five members provided in section 208(d) and Presidential appointments of the other four, so that the Senate may have a feeling of confidence that this is truly an agency which will be put together for the specific purpose which will be allowed by what remains of this amendment – to wit, the monitoring purpose.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, the Senator and I have discussed this matter informally. The language of the bill does not mandate a continuance of the Cost of Living Council as such, or even a continuance of its name. But I would be wore than receptive to an amendment which would further clarify the point along the lines suggested by the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator. I shall present the amendment whenever the Senator feels that the time is propitious, as I do not want to get off on something else until the Senator is ready. I have such an amendment and will submit it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JAVITS. 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. JAVITS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The amendment was read, as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
"SEC.__ The Cost of Living Council shall not continue in operation after June 30, 1974, but the authority conferred on the President under title II of this Act shall be administered by a new agency established by the President.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am ready to vote. I understand there is no problem about the amendment.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will a vote on the Javits amendment to the amendment preclude a further amendment with respect to personnel or with respect to the size of the agency or composition of the agency in any way?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would not preclude adding to the language. It would not.
Mr. PROXMIRE. With respect to personnel and limiting the size of the agency?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would not preclude the Senator.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, this is an amendment added to the bill. I understand the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) had a matter that has been added, so we are adding a new matter.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I understand, but I understand the Muskie amendment is in the bill. I wanted to be sure there is no complication.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. (Putting the question.)
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PASTORE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
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 move that all after the enacting clause of S. 2986 be stricken; and I send to the desk an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The amendment was stated as follows:
Mr. TOWER proposes an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Committee amendment, insert the following: That section 210 of the International Economic Policy Act of 1972 is amended to read as follows:
"AUTHORIZATION
"Sec. 210. To carry out the provisions of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $3,331,000 prior to June 30, 1967, and not to exceed $100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1977.".
TITLE II – ECONOMIC MONITORING ESTABLISHMENT
SEC. 201. There is established an Economic Monitoring Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") which shall consist of the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall be the Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
FUNCTION
Sec. 202. It shall be the function of the Council, in cooperation with public and private agencies, to monitor the economy as a whole.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, does the Senator have a copy of the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. TOWER. We are trying to get copies made now.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
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. 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, the substitute that I have offered changes the authorization portion of the original bill.
Rather than authorizing $1,581,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $1,750,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, that has been changed so it now reads "to be appropriated, not to exceed $3,331,000 prior to June 30, 1976," making it a biennial authorization, and not to exceed $100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977.
In addition, there is a second title which establishes an Economic Monitoring Council which consists of the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall be the Chairman, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Its function would be, in cooperation with public and private agencies, to monitor the economy as a whole.
If this substitute is adopted, Mr. President, it is open to further amendment, and I would intend to propose some amendments to that which would perhaps further flesh out the entire monitoring authorization. It would provide for a considerable number of things.
So I think the first step is to adopt my substitute, and I think amendments will be offered that will do the following:
Declare a congressional finding that inflation remains a serious problem and that the Federal Government should continue to focus attention on inflation and the need to increase production and productive capacity.
It would require a review of wage and price developments in the economy.
It would allow the Council to request information from the private sector and from other Federal agencies.
It would allow the President to enforce decontrol commitments, with commitments made prior to May 1 of this year being made public 30 days after enactment of this bill.
It would allow the Council to issue subpoenas, but only for information necessary to monitor a decontrol commitment.
It would authorize the Council to appoint a staff consisting of 1 executive director, 7 professionals in supergrades, with a total professional staff of not to exceed 28. The idea here is to avoid the establishment of a big bureaucracy that would probably be control-oriented, that would have power to get proprietary information or confidential information on behalf of trade unions, and prevent this agency from becoming a Frankenstein monster that would have perhaps an opposite effect from what it was designed to do.
The idea is to reduce the anticipatory hazard involved in the bill as it now stands, the anticipatory hazard being that with the expectation of the imposition of controls, wage and price bases would be brought up so that when that awful day came, there would be a higher base from which a business organization or a trade union could proceed.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Texas. I think he is on exactly the right track. When we passed the original bill several years ago, one of the fundamental mistakes that was made was in giving the President unlimited power over wages and prices. Even Dr. Arthur Burns, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who is a strong friend of the President, argued that this was too much power to give to any man.
There are few, if any, economic powers – I cannot think of any – greater than the right to determine the level of prices and the level of wages. It is an immense power, and I think it is of the greatest importance to circumscribe it.
The last part of the amendment we will vote on, as I understand it, provides for a budget limitation. This is most desirable, because Congress has the power of the purse. If we simply do what is done in the amendment before us, and it is unamended, we give the President discretion to make whatever appointments he wants and to provide virtually whatever budget he wishes to provide.
The merit of the last part of the amendment is that there is a limit of $1,000,000, and the Senator limits the time. It seems to me this is the responsible, wise, careful way in which the Senate should proceed on this matter.
So I do hope that the Senate will see its way clear to support the Tower amendment.
I have an amendment to the Tower amendment before we vote on it. I hope we have a chance to vote on it, but I think other Senators may wish to discuss this amendment pro and con.
I think it has the value and merit that the Muskie-Stevenson-Johnston proposals have. It provides for a monitoring agency. It would enable the country to know what is going on in these areas. But it means that we would have some control, we would have some limitation, on the size of the agency. As the Senator from Texas has described it, he would circumscribe the monitoring power in such a way that it could not be used the way the wage and price controls have been used before – primarily for controlling wages, and not controlling prices.
For these reasons, I hope the Tower amendment is adopted. I will support it. When the debate on that amendment is completed, I have an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to study the proposed amendment, which I saw just a few moments ago. I think I might begin by making a few observations.
First of all, the Senate voted several times last week, with the result ultimately, after 2 or 2½ hours, of approving the so-called Muskie amendment as title II of the bill. Upsetting that result cannot be achieved by a motion to strike. The rules are clear on that point. The Senate worked its will, adopted the Muskie amendment as amended. It is now in S. 2986, and it cannot be deleted by a motion to strike.
As I examine this one-page amendment, it is simply an effort to get around that prohibition. This is nothing more than a motion to strike in disguise, and I would hope that the Senate would not concur in any such devious attempt to upset what the Senate has already done pursuant to the rules.
There is nothing substantive in this amendment with respect to an economic monitoring establishment. There are only seven lines that do nothing to spell out authority or policy or the objectives of an economic monitoring agency. There is no authorization for funding.
It looks as though it were thrown together in a moment or two in pursuit of the effort to strike the provision from the bill. To adopt it would be a meaningless gesture on the part of the Senate. There is no substance in it.
The Muskie amendment which the Senate adopted last week was a carefully drawn, thought-out, legislative proposal: the objectives spelled out in detail, the authority spelled out in detail, and funding provided.
It is a positive, constructive, good faith measure to arm this country with an agency in a position to do something about inflation.
This amendment of the Senator from Texas is an attempt to get around the rules and to strike from the bill what the Senate has already approved.
In due course, I will move to lay this amendment on the table. I do not think it is deserving of any more treatment than that.
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, reserving my right to the floor.
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has pointed out that this amendment, this motion, is an attempt to accomplish by indirection what cannot be accomplished under the rules. But it is an attempt also to do something more.
This amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Senator from Texas, also changes the authorization for the Council on International Economic Policy. It changes the authorizations for fiscal years 1975 and 1976 and rolls them up into one authorization for the entire period, and changes the amount. It also establishes an authorization for fiscal 1977. There was no such provision of any kind in the underlying bill.
This amendment, where it is not a devious attempt to rework the will of the Senate, is an attempt to rework the will of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The Senate Banking Committee, unanimously, with a long record behind it, recommended authorizations for 1975 and 1976, but nothing for 1977.
So in addition to the arguments made by the Senator from Maine (Mr. (MUSKIE), I point out that without any warrant in the record, this amendment also makes changes in the authorizations for the Council on International Economic Policy.
For that reason, too, I urge the Senate to support the motion to table that will be offered by the Senator from Maine.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Delaware, provided I do not lose my right to the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Texas. I should like to point out two reasons why I oppose the amendment.
First of all, sometime ago I introduced legislation to create a National Commission on Inflation. As a part of my proposal, I provided for the membership of a number of people who are included in the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I think it would be wise to have a commission that included the Secretary of the Treasury, as well as the Chairman of the Council on Economic Advisers and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
However, I further proposed that on this commission there should be representation not only from business and labor, but also from agriculture interests, from State and local governments, and also from the consumer interests. I think that if we try to fight our way through the inflation battle, it is vital that these groups be heard from.
This proposed amendment would strip away the staff that is necessary to monitor the economy effectively.
My second concern about the proposed amendment is that it does not provide for public hearings.
If we are going to be at all effective in putting restraints on inflation, it is absolutely imperative that the monitoring agency has the right to hold public hearings. By doing so, I hope that business and labor will be responsible in their actions in the future; and if they are not, the public and the media will be alerted to their actions.
For these reasons, I join those who oppose the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, preserving my right to the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I should like to point out that the purpose of this one quickie amendment is not only to gut the whole amendment, but also to eliminate completely from the Muskie-Stevenson-Johnston amendment the authority to enforce the amendment. There are 17 major industries, with 300 major firms in this country, all of which have made commitments voluntarily designed to meet the problems of those industries. They range from automobiles to petrochemicals to aluminum, furniture, the retail trade, rubber, and textiles. They are major industries in the country that have made voluntary commitments, not only relative to prices, but also relative to production capacity and to exports.
If we should repeal that provision now by this one-page, quickie amendment, it would put in very serious jeopardy one of the most effective inflation fighters that we have. That would be a sad mistake.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would indicate whether he could support the Tower amendment if it were modified to include the acquisition of economic information and the enforcement of decontrol commitments, to which he has referred.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee that for my own part, as well as for the other cosponsors of the amendment, it would greatly improve the Tower amendment, but it would still fall short of the mark.
Mr. BROCK. In what areas should it be additionally altered?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I think the proper question is, In what areas should the original Muskie- Stevenson-Johnston amendment be altered? On this amendment, on which the Senate has carefully worked and on which the Committee on Stabilization and Production has carefully worked after careful hearings, the burden is particularly on those who wish to amend it.
I have heard no argument of substance to change it, other than that the effect on the Tower amendment is not only to order that done; but those who oppose the Tower amendment seek to change the personnel. Why should we change the personnel when Dr. Dunlop and his associates effected these 300 separate agreements? Should they not be the ones, the people who worked on the bill, be the ones to make the changes and to do the actual enforcement?
I see no affirmative reasons to make the change, but I see affirmative reasons for keeping the amendment in.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. TOWER. With the amendment of the Senator from New York having been adopted, the Cost of Living Council will go out of business at the end of June anyway; so that will not be around to enforce anything.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If I may reply, the Cost of Living Council name never found its way into the statutes anyway. Under the Economic Stabilization Act, the President had authority under the amendment. I think the intent and purpose, as I understood it, of the Javits amendment, was to indicate a new direction for this group; and that is not to be, as he said, oriented toward the enforcement of wage and price controls, which now are out the window. There is no reason to change all the personnel after they are out the window. I concur in that change. There is no reason to change all the personnel and to put drastic limitations on the amount of the fund.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I respond now to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee?
All the authorities, political and economic, which the Senator suggests adding to the Tower amendment, are already included in my amendment which is now part of this bill. It was well worked out and was adopted by the Senate.
So what the Senator is proposing is to start over from ground level and rebuild this structure, brick by brick.
I think the Senator's questions reveal that it is to serve as a substitute for a motion to strike. The Muskie amendment as adopted by the Senate last week is a positive grant of authority limited to enforcement and monitoring – monitoring which is defined in ways that give Congress and the Senate a clear notion of what the agency would do. It is spelled out in a way that is not spelled out in the so-called Tower amendment.
I do not think that this measure can be reduced without destroying it. I think we ought to treat this Tower amendment for what it is, a disguised motion to strike, and I think we ought to have a vote on it. I am prepared, unless there is further substantive discussion, to offer a motion to table the Tower amendment.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that and yield for a brief comment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to, provided I do not lose my right to the floor.
Mr. BROCK. I have no desire whatever to mislead the Senator from Maine as to my intention, which is to oppose any continuation of wage and price control authority. The Senator from Tennessee, I think, has adequately expressed himself on that subject before the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. As between leaving the drafting of the amendment to one who believes in it or one who does not, I would prefer to have the proposal written by someone who believes. Neither the Senator from Tennessee nor the Senator from Texas believes in this effort. Their effort is not disguised at all: it is plainly an effort to gut it and to kill it. That is why it is important to reveal the question posed by the Tower amendment for what it is. I take it the Senator from Tennessee does not wish to disguise it; he does not wish to continue the authority of or improve the agency.
Mr. BROCK. The Senator from Tennessee is in a difficult position, because he would have to vote either on a choice of categorical opposition, as in the past, or take the chance that if the Tower amendment should fail, the amendment of the Senator from Maine would remain, and then the Senator from Tennessee would be faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils.
My posture in this debate is not to change my own support of a free market and opposition to any control formula, but simply to say that if we are going to have controls, I would like very much to have them as limited as humanly possible. I would like to see as much improvement as can be obtained.
What I was asking the Senator from Louisiana was that if the Tower amendment, as compared to what it is now, were changed, and if it included sufficient economic information-gathering potential, if it contained the opportunity for decontrol or for maintenance of decontrol commitments, if it contained subpoena power to back up those commitments, if it contained adequate staffing provisions, what else would be necessary for the Senator's Purpose?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the best answer to the Senator's question is the Muskie amendment as adopted last week. That is what is necessary, in the judgment of the sponsors, and I think it fills out all the gaps of the proposed Tower amendment.
That is the best answer I can offer.
Here we have the purpose of this economic monitoring establishment which the Tower amendment would create. I read section 202:
It shall be the function of the Council, in cooperation with public and private agencies, to monitor the economy as a whole.
What does that mean? What tools are they going to have to do it with? What authorization is there for funding to provide personnel and staff, and what does monitoring mean? Is it a word of art? Is there a definition of it? What kind of authority does it grant?
This is not a substantive proposal. It is a procedural effort to get around the prohibition on a motion to strike.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a comment without losing his right to the floor, may I say the Senator from Texas is fully prepared to accept, or at least consider, amendments offered to his substitute that might improve it.
Mr. BROCK. The question of the Senator from Tennessee, if the Senator will yield further, is whether or not these amendments would in fact improve the Tower amendment. They might improve it in terms of obtaining votes, but I am not sure they would in terms of effect.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may, for the purpose of obtaining the yeas and nays, suggest the absence of a quorum without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. 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. I ask my friend from Maine if he will yield to me without losing his right to the floor so that I might send to the desk a modification of my substitute amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield for that purpose. May I have a copy of the Senator's new amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment as modified.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. TOWER's amendment, as modified, is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Committee amendment, insert the following:
That section 210 of the International Economic Policy Act of 1972 is amended to read as follows:
"AUTHORIZATION
"SEC. 210. To carry out the provisions of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $3,331,000 prior to June 30, 1976, and not to exceed $100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977.".
TITLE II – ECONOMIC MONITORING
ESTABLISHMENT
SEC. 201. There is established an Economic Monitoring Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") which shall consist of the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall be the Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
FUNCTION
SEC. 202. It shall be the function of the Council, in cooperation with public and private agencies, to monitor the economy as a whole.
At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the following:
ECONOMIC INFORMATION
SEC. 203. (a) The Council is authorized to request, and to enter into voluntary agreements providing for the furnishing of, such economic information as may be necessary to carry out its function under section 202.
(b) Information obtained under this section which contains a trade secret or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, shall be considered confidential for purposes of that section.
ENFORCEMENT OF DECONTROL COMMITMENTS
SEC. 204. (a) Notwithstanding the expiration of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970–
(1) any commitment made or given as a condition of, in connection with, in exchange for, or in the course of decontrol or the grant of other relief from or under such Act, prior to May 1, 1974, shall continue in full force and effect; and
(2) the authority and provisions of section 203 (relating to Presidential control authority), 208 (relating to sanctions), 209 (relating to injunctions and other relief), and 211 (relating to judicial review) of such Act (as in effect on April 30, 1974) may be invoked against, and shall apply to, any person who violates any commitment made or given as a condition of, in connection with, in exchange for, or in the course of decontrol or the grant of other relief to such person from or under such Act, prior to May 1, 1974.
(b) The Council shall make public commitments entered into in connection with decontrol or the grant of other relief from the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 prior to May 1, 1974.
(c) To the extent necessary to monitor or enforce a decontrol commitment under subsection (a), the Chairman of the Council may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, sign and issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of any person who made or gave such a commitment, for the production of relevant books, papers, and other documents by such person. Persons summoned under the provisions of this subsection shall be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States. In case of refusal to obey a subpoena served upon any person under the provisions of this section, the Chairman, or his delegate, may request the Attorney General to seek the aid of the United States district court for any district in which such person is found to compel that person, after notice, to appear and give testimony, or to appear and produce documents before the agency.
At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the following:
STAFF
SEC. 205. The Council is authorized to appoint–
(1) an executive director who shall be compensated at the rate provided for an individual occupying a position under level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, and who shall be the chief administrative officer of the Council;
(2) not to exceed 7 individuals who may be compensated at rates not to exceed the highest rate provided for Grade 18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code; and
(3) not to exceed 20 individuals who may be compensated at rates not to exceed the highest rate provided for Grade 15 of such General Schedule.
EXPIRATION
SEC. 206. The authority under this title expires at midnight, April 30, 1976, but such expiration shall not affect any action or pending proceeding, civil or criminal, not finally determined on such date, nor any action or proceeding based upon any act committed prior to May 1, 1976.
AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 207. There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $1,000,000 to carry out the provisions of this title.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for further explanation, these were amendments that had been prepared for others to offer to my substitute, and I simply add here, as a modification of my substitute, the texts of those two amendments. I so modify my substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is so modified.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we have here four pages of additions which had not been brought to our attention before. I can describe them in just one way: they are an attempt to improve the disguise. But the essential purpose is still the same: to do by indirection what the sponsor of this amendment cannot do directly. Under the rules he cannot move to strike the Muskie amendment, which the Senate wrote into the bill last week.
I see no reason to go up that hill and down it again. Last week the distinguished Senator from Texas, in an effort to cut off all debate, triggered a series of votes with minimal debate, a series of votes designed to kill this proposal, and after seven roll call votes – seven, Mr. President – the Senate finally decided to approve the addition of the Muskie amendment to the Stevenson bill, S. 2986.
The only purpose of this proposal, notwithstanding its additional disguise – I am not sure it is even an improved disguise – is to undertake to strike the Muskie amendment, and to substitute something for it which no one has had a chance to look at or evaluate.
We want nothing more in the bill than was contained in the Muskie amendment last week, nor any additions to the authorities created by that amendment. Those authorities were carefully designed and discussed. There is no need for modification of the basic authority. So this, again, is another disguise.
Mr. President, I am not sure there are enough Senators in the Chamber at the moment to get the yeas and nays, but let me test it. I am going to make a motion to table and I would like to ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, has the motion to table been made?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HELMS). It has not yet been made. It is not a debatable motion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I make the motion to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.
There was not a sufficient second.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.