September 29, 1977
Page 31591
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1102 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Chair said if an amendment is not "keyed." What does that mean? I have just moved in here and what I see in operation here is a steamroller of a kind I have not seen in the 19 years I have been in the Senate. I do not know what arrangement has been struck but I do not like the smell of it.
I wish to know what it means when the Chair rules this amendment is not "keyed." I wish to have that spelled out.
I have not used a second of my hour, since I have sat here for the last 3 days listening to this discussion. But what I see here is not my idea about the way the Senate should be operating. I am not going to be part of the steamroller, and I am not going to let it go over me without protesting and asking what does the Chair mean when the Chair says that the amendment is not "keyed" to something. I have heard the word "keyed" used in football. When somebody keys in on somebody in football it means somebody is being rolled over. [Laughter.]
That is what I see going on here, and I would like the Chair to explain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that by saying "It is not keyed," amendment 1259 was drafted to amend 862. All the references, all the paragraphs are set with that amendment. We are now working on amendment No. 862 but with a different text as reported out of the committee pursuant to the motion to recommit which the Senate agreed to. So this amendment does not fit the new text, and, therefore, it is out of order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I remember very well a parliamentary inquiry put by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator STEVENS, in which he raised this risk, that the motion of the Senator from West Virginia, the majority leader, might result in a different pagination, which would then make some amendments which had qualified under the cloture rule out of order. I want to know whether or not the answer that the Senator from Alaska got last night is no longer relevant and whether or not the conditions which the Senator from Alaska put as the basis of his question are now being used by the Chair to rule amendments out of order.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to my good friend from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. The Chair's ruling today is the same ruling stated last night: that if amendments are still keyed to the same pages and lines, they are in order. If they are not, then they are not in order. If the Senator will yield to me just 1 further minute without losing his right to the floor?
The effect of changing amendment No. 862 so it incorporates the language of amendment No. 1022, as amended by amendment No. 1043, is to so change the pages and lines that I venture to say that 99 percent of the amendments at the desk could be ruled out of order.
Mr. MUSKIE. So if I understand the Senator what he is saying is that he did not get a straight answer last night.
Mr. STEVENS. No, I got a straight answer last night.
Mr. MUSKIE. But not applicable today.
Mr. STEVENS. No; the Senator checked amendments and checked with the desk and only one of them is still in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will say to the Chair, and I guess I will have to put it. in the form of a parliamentary inquiry, if this is the kind of precedent we are going to set to operate, once cloture is imposed, I will never again vote for cloture. I have been against filibusters from the day I first came in this Senate. I do not like dilatory tactics, and I voted against some of those that I thought were dilatory in the course of this debate. But now what I see is a determined majority — and it is not a big majority — using one of the most astute parliamentarians that I have known in my experience in the Senate, Senator LONG, to convert this operation into a steamroller.
I heard it said last night that because the tabling motion was carried by 52 to 46, and I think it was my good friend from Texas, Senator TOWER, who said that, somehow those 52 had rights fixed in concrete which eliminated the rights of the 46 to have any influence on the final legislative result. That was an amazing concept of the legislative process. I did not rise to challenge it at that point, but the Senate is an institution where one Senator has a right to influence the final legislative results.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ABOUREZK. May we have order?
Mr. MUSKIE. I see the steamroller in operation.
I yield.
Mr. ABOUREZK. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. HANSEN. Is the Senator from Maine posing a question or making a speech?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I have an hour under the cloture motion, may I say to my good friend from Wyoming. I have not said a word for the 9 days of debate, and suddenly the Senator thinks I am talking too much. That is the kind of majority arrogance of which I have heard the Senator from Wyoming criticize my side of the aisle for the years he has been in the Senate. But now that he is in a majority he finds it a tempting kind of arrogance to embrace.
That is what I heard last night. That tabling motion, may I say to my friends, was interesting if you analyze it. There were 39 Democrats who voted for that tabling motion; there were 2 Republicans who voted for it. There were 30 Republicans who voted against the tabling motion and 15 Democrats who did. So on a party division, this side of the aisle voted overwhelmingly for that tabling motion.
The Senator from Texas said that the 52, which included the 15 Democrats, had a right, in effect, to demand that these stalling tactics, as they described them, these stalling tactics should be terminated so that their will could determine the final legislative results.
All this session I have watched my good friend and distinguished minority leader protect the rights of what — a minority of Republicans. And if we were to embrace the philosophy expressed by the distinguished Senator from Texas last night they would not have a voice in the shaping of legislation on this floor. Yet on that tabling motion the real division of forces in this Senate was disclosed.
It is not the Democratic majority that is writing this legislation; it is the Republican minority, and so it does not speak well for one of that Republican minority to complain that a minority of 46 on this issue is taking the time to make its voice heard.
What are we talking about? I had hoped that the distinguished majority leader had found a way to convert the legislative process that was in disarray to a legislative process that would, in an orderly fashion, move to a final result. If he had succeeded in doing that — and it is obvious that he did not — I would have accepted Pearson-Bentsen as the final result, provided we could do it in an orderly fashion, and I would have opposed dilatory tactics.
But I am just as opposed to steamroller tactics as I am to dilatory tactics, and I rise to protest; and I do not like the kinds of rulings that are being made here to implement that kind of tactics. That is the only reason why I rise.