October 1, 1977
31859
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I voted with Mr. ABOUREZK and Mr. METZENBAUM on the previous roll call because, in my judgment, whether or not an amendment is dilatory should depend upon the length of the amendment. If someone sends an amendment to the desk that has more words than the Holy Bible, then I would have to say it is dilatory to send an amendment that long to the desk. But if it is just an ordinary amendment or one, two, or three pages, I do not regard that as dilatory.
Mr. President, the thought had occurred to me as to how we could bring this filibuster to an end any time we wished, and I am going to make that suggestion after a while. It is simply this: This debate has gone on long enough now so that Senators who want to call up amendments to the bill should have called them up by now. They have not been on notice that they could prejudice themselves by failing to call them up, but Senators who want to call up amendments to the bill could have called up those amendments and had them voted on, for days on end.
So all the Senate really has to do, when it is ready to do so, is merely to hold that any further amendments to the bill should be regarded as dilatory. Most amendments to the bill already have been offered. There may be a few that have not been offered. However, in due course I am going to make the point of order that any amendments to the bill itself — not to the amendment or to the amendment to the amendment — but that any further amendments to the bill—
Mr. JOHNSTON. Perfecting amendments.
Mr. LONG. Any perfecting amendments to the bill itself, any further amendments, are dilatory; that Senators by now, if they really were hoping to get them agreed to, if they were really serious about them, that those amendments had great merit in their judgment, would have called them up.
I will put Senators on notice on this matter before — so I am not going to make the point today.
Now, on Monday I expect to make the point that any perfecting amendments to the bill itself are dilatory, and the Senate can vote on it. If the Senate does not agree with that on Monday it will agree with it eventually because the rule clearly contemplates that type of motion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. If you follow that one, if it would be established, every Senator under the cloture rule is allotted 1 hour of debate, and I think it is just as legitimate to argue that any Senator who has not used his hour of debate as of today should be ruled out of order if he should seek to do so after any time that the Senator from Louisiana decides—
Mr. LONG. I will be glad to yield to the Senator on his time.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is on my time.
Mr. LONG. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Any time the Senator from Louisiana decides is the point beyond which any amendment or any speech is dilatory would become the time when the Senate would rule, would begin to put Senators in their seats.
I do not really believe the Senator wants that. I have not used all of my time except for a few comments where I took issue with the Senator from Louisiana.
But why should another amendment be any more dilatory than another speech? I think what the Senator is proposing here opens up dangerous possibilities. I yield.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, my good friend from Maine is this moment doing something that he on occasion has accused me of doing, and maybe I am guilty of it, but if I am guilty, so is he. He has accused me of assuming that the other man was arguing something he was not contending, and answering something that the other fellow did not say. I have, perhaps, been guilty of that, but this time the Senator was.
I am not talking about everybody having 1 hour. By all means, give everybody1 hour. All I am talking about is that the rule clearly contemplates that some of these amendments are dilatory and others are not. How are you going to tell one from the other? It is a very easy way to tell one from the other. If you have an amendment out there that you think is meritorious and ought to be agreed to, you ought to call the amendment up. We have given you a week to call up the amendment to the bill. A perfecting amendment to the bill would take precedence over an amendment to the amendment or a substitute, and even if someone else had an amendment pending, you could call it up.
So I am putting the Senate on notice that I am going to make a point of order that any amendment to the bill itself, any further perfecting amendment to the bill, is dilatory.
That will take care of some of those amendments and, in due course, Mr. President, I would then make the point of order that any perfecting amendments to the substitute would be dilatory.
The Senate may not vote for it the first time but, in due course, I think the Senate if it has no other way to cut the filibuster off, because that rule presupposes the Senate is going to terminate that filibuster any time a majority of the Senators want to do so after everybody has had 1 hour.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. LONG. I yield on the Senator's time.
Mr. MUSKIE. My memory goes back to the time when speeches were dilatory,and I have heard the Senator from Louisiana make many eloquent speeches hours on end whose only purpose was dilatoriness.
For the Senator to suggest that I am talking through my hat or unreasonably extending the logic of the Senator's proposal in suggesting that a speech can be dilatory as well as an amendment is to assume the Senators are naive in the extreme.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Senator could not be more right. I have made some dilatory speeches, lots of them. But I have not made any dilatory speeches after cloture when I just had 1 hour; when I was saying something I really had to get this off my chest.
Mr. MUSKIE. Because at that time you did not have to. You could not get cloture, so you made your dilatory speeches before cloture. Now somebody has discovered a way to be dilatory after cloture and you envy them. [Laughter.]