March 1'7, 1977
Page 8045
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. NELSON. I yield to the Senator from Maine without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Madeleine Albright and Charles Micoleau of my staff and Robert Rackleff and Al From of Governmental Affairs be permitted access to the Senate floor during consideration of Senate Resolution 110.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SARBANES). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send five amendment to the desk for printing.
Mr. NELSON. This might be an appropriate time to inquire whether any of the Senators on the floor have any amendments that they wish to call up and vote on today or an amendment they wish to lay down today before we conclude the session.
The Senator from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I put a question to the distinguished Senator? As the Senator knows, I have some amendments, one or two of which are controversial and will require some discussion. I am reluctant to call them up and have the time start running on the amendments, because we are limited to 2 hours, which means 1 hour to make the case for amendments that obviously will take a lot more time. Is there a possibility that we might begin discussing the amendments before they are called up and maybe exhaust some of the questions and discussion before I call up the amendment and begin time running on them? Would the Senator like to discuss that in private?
Mr. NELSON. I would think so.
I do not know what the five amendments are. I am assuming that there will be an amendment by the Senator from Maine respecting the earned income limitation. Is that one of the Senator's amendments?
Mr. MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, four of them deal with that in different forms.I may not call them all up.
There are two basic thrusts, I say to the Senator. I have no objection to making this clear for the record. The first amendment would apply the 15 percent limitation on all income across the board. I have three forms of that amendment to try to anticipate some of the objections that might be offered and that I might be able to respond to in different form. It may well be that I will call up only one of those three, or I might see fit to debate the three.
The second amendment is the one that will apply the disclosure discipline across the board
Mr. NELSON. The disclosure what?
Mr. MUSKIE. The disclosure discipline across the board to all incomes, leaving the present limits in the law. Those are the two basic amendments.
The third amendment is an interesting one that I shall send the Senator a copy of in due course. I think he might find it amusing. In any case
Mr. NELSON. I would like to hear something amusing. Would the Senator like to describe it now?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think I ought to interrupt the Senator's description of a serious subject at this point. I shall be glad to call attention to it later.
Mr. NELSON. May I say to the Senator from Maine that I know that other Members intend to propose important and serious amendments. I believe there is an intent by one or more Members to offer a substitute at some stage which would simply provide for disclosure and eliminate all other aspects of the bill. It was my understanding that the Senator from Maine intended to offer amendments respecting the earned income limitation. I would like to say to the Senator that I am perfectly happy for time to be granted off the bill to let us begin the discussion, or, if the amendment were laid down, to take time from the bill. But let me say, it is my expectation that, however we handle that, we shall not vote on the major question of earned income or variations of it until Monday or Tuesday or sometime next week.
We have many issues to take care of but, obviously, I consider that a major issue.
I think the Members ought to have a chance to look at the Senator's proposals. So it would be my wish that we not vote until next week on income limitation amendments.
Is that any problem for the Senator from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not at all. It could give us each time to mobilize some votes.
But does the Senator know what the schedule is for tomorrow, are we coming in?
Mr. NELSON. I believe we are coming in at 12 noon tomorrow.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suggest to the Senator that perhaps tomorrow afternoon we might engage in a discussion of the principles of my amendments so that Senators who are interested might have the benefit of the RECORD over the weekend of what we have to say, and that dialog might continue the first of the week.
As far as a day for voting, any time next week is fine for me.
Mr. NELSON. I do not know how long we will be in or what other amendments Senators might want to make up. But I am in general agreement with what the Senator says.
The majority leader may not have granted me control of the time, so I do not wish to say what time would be given on the resolution until I check it.
But it is the intent of the leader, I believe, as well as my intent, that on any major amendment, time from the bill can be added to our time limitation on the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is fine.
Why do I not check with the Senator some time before tomorrow and tentatively see if we can get together in a discussion on the floor that would give us each a chance to bounce off each other our arguments and exceptions?
Mr. NELSON. And those five amendments will be printed by tomorrow, so they will be available.
Are they brief amendments?
Mr. MUSKIE. One is about three pages, the other two are each one page.
Mr. NELSON. If they are brief, would it not be helpful to print them in the RECORD?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be printed at this point in the RECORD.
Mr. DURKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SARBANES). Objection is heard.
Mr. DURKIN. Merely a question.
There has been no agreement with respect to what time the Senator's amendment would be brought up, or any amendment will be brought up?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not at all.
What we are talking about is maybe discussing my amendment tomorrow. In an agreement, we would not be voting on my amendment this week, but, rather, some day early next week, along with other major amendments.
So that there is no agreement at this point and we are not in a position to arrive at an agreement until we have consulted with the majority leader.
Mr. DURKIN. Fine. I have no objection to that end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(Mr. MUSKIE's amendments are printed in today's RECORD under Amendments Submitted for Printing.)
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend.
Mr. DURKIN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, in an effort to facilitate matters as the floor manager suggested, that any amendments that may be lurking about be offered today so they can be printed, I have six technical amendments that the distinguished floor manager may be willing to accept.
Mr. NELSON. Are they as technical as the ones we had previously?
Mr. DURKIN. About 50 percent.
Does the Senator want me to give a brief description of the amendments as I offer them?
Mr. NELSON. No, but the Senator is free to do so if he wishes.
Mr. DURKIN. The first amendment would strike the family business exception.
The second amendment would strike the family business exception, except for a family-owned farm of no more than 10 employees.
The third amendment would, on page 28, line 1, strike the word "principal" and make it unethical for a Senator to introduce and take a position on legislation that the purpose would be to benefit interests of his.
The fourth amendment would be to impose upon the Senators, impose upon the U.S. Senate, the same conflict of interest requirements as are imposed upon Federal judges, namely, that they could not vote if they had a stock interest, or they could not vote if they had a substantial benefit, or allies and associates had substantial benefit.
It applies the same conflict of interest to Senators as required of our Federal bench.