June 21, 1976
Page 19401
UP AMENDMENT NO. 65
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) proposes an unprinted amendment No. 65 to the amendment of Mr. Bellmon No. 64.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PACKWOOD. Object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue reading the amendment.
Mr. LONG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend. There was objection to the dispensing with the reading of the amendment and, therefore, the clerk will have to report the amendment and will continue reading the amendment.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I made objection because I could not hear. I wanted to get the Chair's attention. Reserving the right to object, I simply did not get the attention of the Chair to hear what was going on. What was this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request was to dispense with the reading of the unprinted amendment sent to the desk by the Senator from Maine amending an amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I still reserve the right to object. This is an amendment to the BELLMON amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
Mr. PACKWOOD. What is the Bellmon amendment an amendment to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bellmon amendment is an amendment to the original text proposed to be stricken.
Mr. PACKWOOD. The original House text?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment of the Senator from Maine?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, how long is the amendment? If it is not too long I would like to hear it read. How long is it?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is approximately 10 pages.
Mr. LONG. I am not going to ask that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment of the Senator from Maine? Hearing none, it is so ordered, and the clerk will not read the amendment.
The amendment is as follows:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 42 (relating to taxable income credit) is amended to read as follows:
"(a) GENERAL RULE.
"(1) In the case of an individual, there is allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the greater of—
"(A) 2 percent of so much of the taxpayer's taxable income for the taxable year as does not exceed $9,000, or
"(B) $35 multiplied by each exemption for which the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year under subsection (b) or (e) of section 151."
"(2) NINE-MONTH RULE FOR 1977 — Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), in the case of taxable years ending after December 31, 1976 and before January 1, 1978,the percentage '1.5 percent' shall be substituted for the percentage '2 percent' in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph and the amount '$26.25', shall be substituted for the amount '$35' in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph.".
(3) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(A) Section 56(a) (2) (relating to imposition of minimum tax), as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (iv), by striking out "; and" at the end of clause (v) and inserting in lieu thereof ", and", and by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause :
"(vi) section 42 (relating to taxable incomecredit) ; and".
(B) Section 56(c) (1) (relating to tax carryovers), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (D), by striking out "exceed" at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting in lieu thereof "and", and by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new subparagraph:
"(F) section 42 (relating to taxable income credit), exceed".
(C) Section 6096(b) (relating to designation of income tax payments to Presidential Election Campaign Fund), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "and 41" and inserting in lieu thereof "41, and 42".
(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.— The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out the item relating to section 42 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"SEC 42. Taxable Income credit.".
(b) STANDARD DEDUCTION.
(1) LOW INCOME ALLOWANCE.— Subsection(c) of section 141 (relating to low income allowance) is amended to read as follows:
"(c) LOW INCOME ALLOWANCE.— The low income allowance is—
"(1) $2,100 in the case of
"(A) a joint return under section 6013, or
"(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a) ),
"(2) $1,700 in the case of an individual who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse (as so defined), or
"(3) $1,050 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return."
(2) PERCENTAGE STANDARD DEDUCTION.— Subsection (b) of section 141 (relating to percentage standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
"(b) PERCENTAGE STANDARD DEDUCTION.— The percentage standard deduction is an amount equal to 16 percent of adjusted gross income, but not more than—
" (1) $2,800 in the case of
"(A) a joint return under section 6013, or
"(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)).
"(2) $2,400 in the case of an individual who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse (as so defined), or
"(3) $1,400 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return.".
(3) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(A) Subsection (a) of section 3402 (relating to income tax collected at source) is amended to read as follows:
"(a) REQUIREMENT OF WITHHOLDING.— Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the Secretary."
"Until September 30, 1977, the tables so prescribed shall be the same as the tables in effect on June 18, 1976. With respect to wages paid after September 30, 1977, the Secretary shall prescribe new tables which are the same as the tables in effect on January 1,1975, but modified to the extent necessary to reflect the amendments made by section 101(b) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976."
"For purposes of applying such tables, the term 'the amount of wages' means the amount by which the wages exceed the number of withholding exemptions claimed, multiplied by the amount of one such exemption as shown in the table in subsection (b) (1) .".
(B) Paragraph (6) of section 3402(c) (relating to wage bracket withholding), as such paragraph existed on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out "table 7 contained in subsection (a)" and inserting in lieu thereof "the table for an annual payroll period prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) ".
(C) Subparagraph (B) of section 3402(m) (1) (relating to withholding allowance based on itemized deduction) is amended to read as follows:
"(b) an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 16 percent of his estimated wages, or (ii) $2,800 ($2,400 in the case of an individual who is not married (within the meaning of section 143) and who is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a) ) ) .".
(D) So much of paragraph (1) of section 6012(a) (relating to persons required to make returns of income) as precedes subparagraph (C) thereof is amended to read as follows:
"(1) (A) Every individual having for the taxable year a gross income of $750 or more, except that a return shall not be required of an individual (other than an individual referred to in section 142(b) )—
"(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 143), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a) ), and for the taxable year has a gross income of less than $2,450,
"(ii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has a gross income of less than $2,850, or
"(iii) who is entitled to make a joint return under section 8013 and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than $3,600 but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home. Clause (iii) shall not apply if for the taxable year such spouse makes a separate return or any other taxpayer is entitled to an exemption for such spouse under section 151(e).
"(B) The amount specified in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $750 in the case of an individual entitled to an additional personal exemption under section 151(c) (1), and the amount specified in clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $750 for each additional personal exemption to which the individual or his spouse is entitled under section 151(c) ; ".
(C) EARNED INCOME CREDIT.
(1) IN GENERAL.— Subsections (a) and (b)of section 43 (relating to earned income credit) are amended to read as follows:
"(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.— In the case of an eligible individual, there is allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 10 percent of so much of the earned income for the taxable year as does not exceed $4,000.
"(b) LIMITATION.— The amount of the credit allowable to a taxpayer under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount equal to 10 percent of so much of the adjusted gross income (or, if greater, the earned income) of the taxpayer for the taxable year as exceeds $4,000.".
(2) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.— Section 43(c) (1)(A) is amended by striking out "with respect to whom he is entitled to claim a deduction under"and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "if such child meets the requirements of".
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— Section 209 (b) of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 is amended by striking out ", and before January 1, 1977." and inserting in lieu thereof a period.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1975. The amendments made by subsection (b) apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1975. The amendment made by subsection (c) takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(e) REFUNDS OF EARNED INCOME CREDIT DISREGARDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS.
(1) Subsection (d) of section 2 of the Revenue Adjustment Act of 1975 is amended by striking out "or any month thereafter which begins prior to July 1, 1976,".
(2) Subsection (g) of section 2 of such act is amended to read as follows:
"(g) EFFECTIVE DATES.— The amendments made by this section (other than by subsection (d)) apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1975, and before January 1, 1977. Subsection (d) applies to taxable years ending after December 31, 1975.".
Mr. MUSKIE and Mr. LONG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. I am informed that the same problem which existed with regard to the Roth amendment may also exist with regard to the Bellmon amendment. Under section 306 of the Budget Act, the point made by Mr. MUSKIE may very well apply to the point made to the amendment offered by Mr. BELLMON.
I would like to ask the Chair if there is a budget problem involved in the Bellmon amendment; that is, a problem involved in section 306 of the Budget Act in the Bellmon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is prepared to rule, if a point of order is made, but will not give an advisory opinion.
Mr. LONG. Then I make the point of order that the amendment violates section 306 of the Budget Act.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator addressed his point of order to the Bellmon amendment, am I correct?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
I have not had a chance to read the Muskie amendment; I am talking about the Bellmon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bellmon amendment is susceptible to the point of order under section 306 of the Budget Act and the point of order is sustained.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator repeat his statement?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to appeal that ruling on the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He appeals the ruling of the Chair?
The question—
Mr. MUSKIE. The appeal.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, is that debatable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That appeal taken by the Senator from Maine is debatable.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I know the difficulties—
Mr. MUSKIE. I sought recognition. I thought I received recognition.
Mr. LONG. I asked the question.
Mr. PASTORE. Regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to ask the reporter to read just what happened because I am satisfied I had the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that is the only way.
The Official Reporter of Debates (Mrs. Eleanor R. Ross) read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is prepared to rule if a point of order is made, but will not give advisory opinion.
Mr. LONG. Then I make the point of order that the amendment violates section 306 of the Budget Act.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator addressed his point of order to the Bellmon amendment, am I correct?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
I have not had a chance to read the Muskie amendment, I am talking about the Bellmon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bellmon amendment is susceptible to the point of order and the point of order is sustained.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a point of order. Is the appeal made?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator repeat his statement?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to appeal that ruling on the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He appeals the ruling of the Chair?
The question—
Mr. MUSKIE The appeal.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, is that debatable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion of the Senator from Maine is debatable.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I know the difficulties—
Mr. MUSKIE. I sought recognition. I thought I received recognition.
Mr. LONG. I asked the question.
Mr. PASTORE. Regular order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would rule the Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, on the ruling, let me read section 306. First, let me read the Bellmon amendment, at least the opening phrases:
Congress having adopted a budget resolution that hereby extends the tax cut.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators please take their seats.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Bellman amendment reads as follows:
Congress having adopted a budget resolution that hereby extends the tax cut.
Then it continues about the language.
I submit that the subject of that amendment is the tax cut which Senator LONG has been asserting since last Wednesday is the jurisdiction of his committee, and I have not challenged it.
What does section 306 say?
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.
This is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. The tax cut is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. How then can it be subject to a point of order, a point of order calling on section 306 of the Budget Act?
I find the ruling incomprehensible. I will tell the Senators the purpose of this series of amendments. The purpose is to enable the Senate to vote on the extension of the tax cuts unencumbered by a Long amendment which has been debated all afternoon with very sparse attendance, which has consequences which most Senators, I do not believe, have had a chance to consider.
We can debate those consequences in connection with the amendments that the Senator from Oklahoma and I have offered: the option of voting for the Muskie amendment unencumbered by the Long amendment and, in the process, be educated on both, conceivably.
But the point of order is simply this: The purpose of section 306 is to insure that the budget resolution and related matters go to the Committee on the Budget so that the process will not be subverted by ad hoc actions on the floor of the Senate. So section 306 is intended to protect the budget process.
The Bellmon amendment reads: Congress having adopted a budget resolution it hereby extends the tax cut.
The subject of that amendment is the same as the Muskie amendment which has been pending and which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Somehow can the subject matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee be invoked as a violation of section 306 which is intended to protect the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee? There is absolutely no rational justification for that kind of a parliamentary ruling, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President
Mr. MUSKIE. May I ask the Parliamentarian to reconsider his advice in light of what I said?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, as far as I am concerned, I would be happy to go along with the Senator from Maine and support his appeal to the ruling of the Chair because I would prefer that we vote on the Senator's amendment and we vote on preserving every Senator his right to move to table or otherwise. From my point of view, Mr. President, I wouldjust as soon we go to the merits of this matter rather than otherwise.
I would ask consent of the Senate that the amendment be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, the amendment is ruled in order.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, what the Senator is seeking to do is to overcome the vote we just had. The Senator and his group have been accusing us of filibustering and have been demanding the right to vote all day long and on yesterday. After we offered this amendment today, they have been saying, "We want a vote. When do we vote?" They say we are filibustering.
So by the time we vote on an offered amendment, which is more or less to balance the budget, they say, "If you can find the money to pay for the additional cost your amendment will impose, all right, we will go along with your amendment. If you cannot raise the money to do that, then your amendment does not go into effect until you do provide the revenue."
The whole burden was that if you vote for the amendment, you are going to have to provide the revenue for it. The whole purpose was to take the Senator up on this whole premise with a balance the budget amendment, which I offered, and which he failed to table when Mr.
BELLMON offered it.
Now they have this second set of amendments, that in the event they could not table the Long amendment then they would offer an amendment to the House bill and then an amendment to the amendment. So one offers one amendment and the other offers another amendment so that the Long amendment cannot be voted upon. They prevent me from getting a vote on my amendment.
So, Mr. President, the only thing I can do under the circumstances is to insist that the Senate have a chance to vote on the amendment that it failed to table. The way to do that is to move to table the Bellmon amendment which would take the Muskie amendment with it.
SEVERAL SENATORS. Yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 49, nays 42, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I can live with the Muskie amendment if the Long amendment is agreed to. This would insist that revenues have to be raised to pay for it, or otherwise it would not go into effect. I can live with it that way,or I can live without it, and wait until we come to that place in the bill where it would be appropriate to take the matter up and have the Senate work its will.
If we can vote on the Long amendment to the Muskie amendment right now, I am ready to go ahead and vote on it. Otherwise, since Senators are going to be leaving here, I would have no choice but to move to table.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote on the Long amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUMPERS). Is there objection?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will takejust 4 or 5 minutes, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator reserve his right to object to the request just made?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, much as I like that part of the legislative vehicle that we now have before us in terms of the prospect that we can continue the tax cut for all Americans and avoid a tax increase on July 1, 1977, as would be the case if the reported Finance Committee bill were enacted, the Long amendment, in my judgment, is such an inappropriate mechanism for implementing that purpose that I find it very difficult to become a part of it.
What the Long amendment does, for those who were not on the floor during the course of the afternoon today, is provide that the tax extension for fiscal year 1977 will take effect if and only if we pick up, in effect, the $2 billion in tax expenditure revenue increases, or their equivalent, by the time the bill is finally enacted by Congress. If we pick up $1.950 billion it will not be extended. If we pick up $1.999 billion it will not be extended.
Who is to judge whether or not we picked up the revenue to meet the condition of the Long amendment? The Secretary of the Treasury within 30 days after the bill is enacted. If he happens to have different economic assumptions than we do on the day that we enact the legislation and his numbers are below the $2 billion that we may have assumed we picked up, then he can rule under the conditions of the Long amendment that the tax extension will not be implemented.
What the Long amendment undertakes to do is to tie our hands before we have finished consideration of this bill with respect to what the final result will be after we have finished. It assumes that we have not the intelligence as a body to accommodate the final result to the individual decisions that we make through the legislative process on this bill.
There was only one reason that this Long amendment was offered. It was to give the Senate what appeared to be an attractive alternative to the Muskie amendment, to appear to create the basis for an extension of the tax cuts without, in reality, giving any momentum to this objective at all.
It was a very cleverly conceived parliamentary device so that when Senators came through the door they were told we will have the tax cut if we raise the money for it, an attractive proposition.
It was the only way it could be described in a one sentence description.
The second point I make is this, may I say to my colleagues: between the first budget resolution and the second in the fall the Budget Act anticipates the possibility of spending decisions and revenue decisions in that period which will require a change in the budget that is adopted in the spring. So that if it is the will, finally, of the Senate to approve only $1 billion in tax expenditure reforms and to extend the tax cuts or not to extend them, whatever the Senate does, and the House of Representatives concurs, the budget process provides that in September we will take all of the spending decisions and all of the revenue decisions that have been made in the interim and reconcile them with the original targets, ask for more taxes, cut spending, lower or raise the deficit or whatever. There is a reconciliation process built in.
What the Long amendment tries to do is to write in a reconciliation process in this bill. If we set that precedent, what is to prevent any committee, when an appropriation bill comes to the floor, to press for expenditures which breach the budget targets by offering an amendment that would provide for reconciliation of this kind within the confines of each bill, so that when we finally get at the end of the process in September the Budget Committee will have the job of unscrambling all the reconciliation processes that had been used as justification for increasing spending, approving new programs, and passing a bill like this which the Finance Committee has reported out? That is the kind of precedent we are talking about. It simply means, if we set this precedent that Senator LONG is asking us to set, that we will have taken the first step to the kind of budgetary anarchy that we had in the first place that we tried to correct with the budget process.
I simply wished to make that point to the Senate. I am not going to do a thing about delaying the Senate, or offering any more motions or amendments. I get messages pretty clearly. I got two within the last 45 minutes. It is a message by the Senate to itself. I am simply the instrument of the Senate. But I tell Senators I do not really think they want anything like this Long amendment as a precedent in the budget process of this Congress.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I have some trepidation getting involved in the discussion between the two Senators, but let me ask them because I have respect for both of them: Why can we not proceed with the Finance Committee bill and have the Budget Committee give us its judgment after the Senate collectively has worked its will on the Finance Committee proposal that is before us? Not all of us have made up our minds 100 percent to support. But I think we would like to see what it looks like before the Budget Committee comes in and says what the Finance Committee proposed is out of line.The Senator is not even giving us a chance to look at this bill to work our will and then have the Budget Committee give us its views as to whether this bill is consistent with the resolution that we have previously approved. With due respect to my friend, is the answer not for us to proceed with the Finance Committee bill and not with the Muskie amendment or the Long amendment to the Muskie amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that, in essence, we can get out of what happened and proceed with the bill. I hope we can drop this matter now, including the Long amendment. I would prefer it otherwise, but the Senate spoke.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must interrupt and inquire: There is objection to what I believe the Chair construed as the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BROOKE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine meant what he just said, as I heard him, why does he not withdraw his amendment and let us proceed with the Finance bill as the Senator from Alaska has suggested? I think that is the best way to proceed, and then we would all be able to work as best we could on a good tax bill. If he withdraws his Muskie amendment we can go on title by title as we intended to start with the bill.
Mr. LONG. I am happy to do that.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, there are a number of us present who have been well informed by the protagonists of this debate as to the jurisdictional differences that exist between the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee. And, of course, we have also been treated to some very adroit maneuvering of a parliamentary nature. But the real fact of the matter is what has been argued in the Chamber and should be argued regarding the basic economic policy issue before us. That is far beyond jurisdictions, far beyond whether or not we should proceed with the bill along the lines proposed by the Finance Committee. The fundamental issue is what are our projections for this economy and how do these projections relate to the tax policy that will be adopted by Congress? I think it is the duty of the Senate to give the American economy — business, labor, and consumers — some assurance. There is not a single person of any competence who has testified before any committee of this Congress who has not said that we face a long period during which our economy will operate well below its full potential. Unemployment will remain at unacceptably high rates throughout the1970's. This is no time to raise questions about whether taxes on our families will be increased. This will be bad for our working families, businesses, and the Nation.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I was hoping to get consent. It looks as if we are not going to get consent with Senators leaving the Chamber.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Just a minute. That is right.
The Senator from Louisiana and others have held the floor a long time.
Mr. LONG. I object to my own request.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. I move to table the Muskie amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that a minute?
Mr. CURTIS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Who has the floor?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold the motion a moment?
Mr. CURTIS. Regular order. Let us vote.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, who has the floor? I yielded to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. MANSFIELD. 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. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I presume that the suggestion made by the distinguished Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) is worth every consideration. Otherwise, we will continue at this impasse, nothing will be accomplished, and we still will be in a state of disarray. The Senate does not look too good.
I ask at this time that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) and the Senator from Maine each withdraw his amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I indicated to the majority leader, I will be happy to do so. Not happy; that is not exactly the word. [Laughter.]
But in the light of the votes that have been taken, I would agree with the Senator's assessment of the situation. I will take this matter up again. I would prefer otherwise. I do withdraw my amendment.
Mr. LONG. I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does theSenator from Maine withdraw his amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STONE) . The amendment of the Senator from Maine is withdrawn; therefore, the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana falls with it.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Louisiana and the distinguished Senator from Maine for reaching this accommodation.
I will support the Muskie amendment when it is offered later, as the distinguished Senator says he plans to do, provided the recovery of the lost revenue resulting from the Muskie amendment has been made. I think we have had the cart before the horse here, when we add the $1.7 billion in additional tax reduction without knowing whether or not we can make it up.
I think that a reasonable compromise has been reached. The recovery of some $1 billion is all it takes, because the Finance Committee amendment left some $800 million not provided for in tax reductions. All it would take would be to recover $1 billion. I hope that it can be recovered. I hope we will be able to vote for the Muskie amendment later in the day.