October 9, 1978
Page 34692
Mr. LONG. Were we not supposed to go, in the first order of business, to the amendment offered on behalf of Senator DOMENICI that was being offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania? Did we not have an agreement that would be the first amendment we would go to this morning?
Mr. STEVENS. That comes up under the 20-minute agreement does it not, and vote on it at 3 o'clock?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That begins at 3 o'clock.
Mr. LONG. Three o'clock?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. LONG. The Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON), has an amendment he wants to offer. Perhaps we can consider that one.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. HATCH. I have five amendments, I would be happy to bring up one not as controversial—
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Senator—
Mr. HATCH. I would suggest I bring that up right now.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Of course, theSenator has the right to call up any amendment he wishes to call up when he gets recognition. I just express the hope, and I do so again, that the Senate could utilize most of this day, up until the hour of 2 o'clock, in disposing of other amendments to the tax bill so as to make as much progress as possible.
I yield the floor to the manager of the bill.
Mr. LONG. Let me just say to those Senators who have amendments—
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG (continuing). That are not germane, keep in mind that the germaneness rule is a very strict rule, far stricter than most people realize, unless they are familiar with it from Senate practice.
Those who have amendments which are not germane ought to be bringing them to us before we vote on cloture.
But I would hope they would not bring up amendments that will result in an extended debate because that would foreclose any other Senator from having his amendment considered.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield to me for one moment?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. Is it the intention of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin to have extended debate on my amendment?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I do not intend to filibuster. I want a certain notice that I intend to explain why. That might take 45 minutes, an hour, an hour and a half.
In view of the fact that we do have limited time, three major amendments Senators want to discuss, as the manager of the bill has pointed out, every nongermane amendment has only a chance now, perhaps, we do not know, maybe it will later, but, if we invoke cloture, they are dead.
Mr. HATCH. I believe this amendment is germane.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Then the Senator ought to lay it aside until we have a cloture vote.
Mr. HATCH. The reason
Mr. LONG. If the Senator's amendment is germane
Mr. HATCH. It is.
Mr. LONG (continuing). And if it is one of those things that might result in extended debate, it is to the Senator's advantage to wait, and after cloture is voted to bring it up, because then there will be a limitation, only 1 hour for every Senator.
Mr. HATCH. I do not believe it will result in extended debate. But it is a complex amendment and difficult to understand.
If cloture is invoked, I may not have the time that I need to explain the amendment.
Mr. LONG. Every Senator has an hour.Obviously, they cannot yield their hour, but the Senator can give somebody something in writing and they can look at it and see what it is all about. Most Senators do not stay and listen to a whole hour of conversation about someone's amendment anyhow. If the Senator hopes to get the Senators to stay here while he talks for an hour, he is doing pretty well.
Mr. HATCH. I will do this. I have a number of other, I think, less controversial amendments. I will be happy to call those up. That will take less time, and I will cooperate with the distinguished manager of the bill.
I call up an amendment at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I hope that the present occupant of the Chair will try to pass the matter around and give Senators a chance to get to their amendments before the Senate prior to the nongermane amendments, before we vote on cloture; because those who have the nongermane amendments really should have their amendments before us before we vote on cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time this morning is under the control of the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Maine; the Senator from Wyoming(Mr. HANSEN) has 30 minutes. No one can bring up anything unless time is yielded by one of the three Senators named.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana yield to the Senator from Maine at this point?
Mr. LONG. I will yield the floor at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not need to use the Senator's time. I would like a couple of minutes of my own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized on his own time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I should like to make the point that the first cloture vote will determine whether or not issues such as sunset, the Humphrey-Hawkinsbill, and other nongermane amendments — I do not know what others there are — can be considered and voted on later. So this morning this time should be used to the extent that the proponents and opponents of those amendments desire to use it, to fully expose that issue.
If cloture is voted on the first cloture motion, those nongermane amendments are out. The Glenn amendment is out. The sunset amendment is out. The Humphrey-Hawkins bill is out.
It seems to me that we have a right to make our case this morning, to the extent we need the time to do so; and I certainly have no desire to use a great deal of time, but I think that should be the first order of business this morning.
If we do not wish to debate those nongermane amendments, then I, for one, would be willing to yield to sponsors of other amendments, for their consideration. But I think it is understood that we gave up time on Saturday afternoon and evening so that germane amendments could be called up and disposed of, and we now should consider these nongermane amendments.
The opponents of sunset complained all morning Saturday that they were not given time to debate sunset. The Senator from Wyoming was given a special order of 30 minutes to debate it. I would like to see that debate go forward. I do not know how much of that 30 minutes he plans to use, but he certainly is entitled to use all of it, and probably more than that, to discuss his view of the Glenn amendment or the sunset amendment. I have no objection to that. I came here this morning to listen. That is what he wanted me to do on Saturday, so I am here to listen.
I assume that then there will be some response to the arguments he makes, and there should be. But the issue to decide with respect to the first cloture motion is whether or not these nongermane amendments should be driven off the floor, in effect, so that we can discuss the tax bill and the germane amendments. That is a legitimate issue.
I am not going to use any more time now. I just wanted to make that clear. That is why I am here this morning. If those interested in these amendments wish to use time I control for germane amendments, I will be happy to consider those, especially if they do not take too much time. That is my view of what we should be doing this morning.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. NELSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 96 minutes remaining. The Senator from Louisiana has 89 minutes remaining. The Senator from Wyoming has 30 minutes remaining.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I think it would be appropriate that the Senator from Louisiana should make an opening statement, and it need not be lengthy, to explain my view. I would want to say it again when there are more Senators in the Chamber, but I at least could make my position clear for the record. Then, when we come near the conclusion and have Senators here, I would like the same thing again, perhaps in some different words.
Senator "Bert" Wheeler used to say that any Senator had to expect to make the same speech twice if he wanted most Senators to hear it, and that was when they had better attendance than today.
I will be glad to state my position briefly about this matter.
Mr. NELSON. Mr President, I should like to propound a question to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
I would like to propound a unanimous consent request that I be given 2 minutes, not out of the time of either side, to dispose of a matter that passed the House, involving two wilderness areas in Wisconsin, which I withheld talking up on Friday night because there were germane amendments by a dozen Senators who wanted to take them up.
This matter is unobjected to by either side. Senator HANSEN is here, and we could dispose of it in 2 minutes if I could have the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator, if Senator LONG is willing to yield the floor.
Mr. LONG. I will speak for a few minutes, and then I will yield the floor.
Mr. President, it does not help in passing any bill and to add more controversy to a bill that already has a lot of controversy. There is a tremendous amount of controversy in the bill we have right now.
We are confronted with the possibility of a Presidential veto. We know that is being discussed. It has been discussed on television, on the talk shows, with the Vice President. Cabinet officers are talking about it.
We know that we have issues that could result in a deadlock between the Senate and the House of Representatives, but we are optimistic that we can get a bill as far as the President's desk.
However, whether we can get a bill there that he will sign is an entirely different matter.
In addition, amendments are being proposed that would have some strenuous opposition. There are people so strongly opposed to some of them that even though they would vote for the bill the way it is now, if you add those controversial amendments, they will vote against it.
If you are going to pass a bill that has a lot of controversy already, you should leave out matters that are not germane to the bill, which bring in still more controversy.
With all the controversy that is in this bill, one could say, "Here is our chance to pass the sunset bill, so let's pass the sunset bill." From the Muskie standpoint, I think a majority of Senators would vote for it, but some may be strongly opposed. So that would lose some votes.
Also, I doubt whether the Glenn amendment could get a majority of votes. If we learn more about it and have a chance to study this matter, and when the business community gets to understand it better, and when the people in the charitable organizations and the State and local governments understand what the Glenn amendment means a lot better than they understand it now, there will be much more opposition to the Glenn amendment.
So, frankly, if that amendment were to be added to the bill, that would reduce further the possibility that this bill could be passed.
Then, let us take the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. That has a lot of appeal in labor circles and in liberal circles. In conservative circles, it is anathema. They are violently opposed to the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. Many of us are generally for the concept but have not had an opportunity to study the details, so we will not be ready to vote on it for awhile.
If Humphrey-Hawkins is added, I assume it could get a majority vote by people who are in favor of the idea, but some people are violently opposed to it, and they would be against the bill. They would vote against the whole bill if Humphrey-Hawkins is added to it.
Then comes the textile quota matter. I suppose the only reason we do not have the textile quota hanging here as an amendment is that it is already blocked out by sunset and Humphrey- Hawkins.
One is added as an amendment to the committee bill; the other, an amendment to the House bill. So they are blocked out on both sides. That being the case, the textile quota cannot be added right now.
So, as in the case of the threat of the Presidential veto, this is a threat in its own right by very dedicated opposition of people who pursue the free trade concept.
All right. Then add the hospital cost containment bill. Once again that has some strong support, and it has some strong opposition, depending upon whether you take the administration approach, the Kennedy approach, or the Talmadge approach. But in any event, whichever approach you take, there will be opposition to that. So if you add that on top of it, it is just like hitting a ship, that is already fully loaded, with four torpedoes.
We had that type situation happen to the Export-Import Bank. It got hit in the bow, you might say, by the textile amendment. Then it got hit in the stern by another torpedo which was the waterway amendment. It was set up ready to be hit amidship by the Glenn amendment, but unfortunately it went to the bottom before the Glenn amendment could reach the target. The Glenn amendment was turned around and now it is being offered on the tax bill.
Mr. President, if all the Senators want to do is just torpedo this bill, that is easy enough to do. All they have to do is just insist that everything around here that someone wishes to pass between now and the time Congress adjourns should be added.
I have a nominee myself, Mr. President, if we are going to add all these irrelevant bills, knowing the bill will not go anywhere, but knowing we can tell the people back home that we did our damndest to do something. I want my Sugar Act on here. It has been reported out of the Finance Committee. And we are outraged that the administration does not understand the plight of the sugar farmer.
I want someone to go get that Sugar Act right now and make it available to me, so if it is going to be torpedoed with everything else we will torpedo it with the Sugar Act, which we will let go whenall the other acts hit the target.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment on all the torpedoes that are coming around this morning?
Mr. LONG. The Senator may comment on his torpedo, the Glenn amendment.
Mr. GLENN. I am glad to.
With regard to the torpedo that I am alleged to have fired into this particular tax bill, I will say that I would have been happy to have fought this battle on another sea or another ocean and at another time.
I remind the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee that we had this pending amendment before his committee since March 1977, but have been unable to get any action on it. So, I indicate that we would have been glad to have had this as a little skirmish in a harbor someplace rather than in the full range naval battle terms in which the distinguished Senator frames the discussion this morning.
Mr. LONG. I would have been delighted to have had unanimous consent that the Glenn amendment be the third torpedo on the Export-Import Bank bill, had I known we could have settled for that, that the Senator would be willing to fire his torpedo into that ship and let the ship go down to the bottom of the ocean with it and get on to other matters. Unfortunately, it looked at that point that although his torpedo might hit the ship, the ship might continue to sail to some harbor, and that being the case, we could not afford to take that chance.
If we are going to pass this bill, Mr. President, we are going to have to have a rule of germaneness both to reduce the number of amendments that can be offered and to limit the scope of the bill and to reduce the amount of time Senators can spend speaking on these matters. If we cannot get cloture invoked today, we will have to come back and try again because we cannot permit this tax bill to be held hostage for everything that has a possibility of mustering a majority vote here in the Senate, everything that someone has left that he wants to get done before Congress goes home.
Furthermore, Mr. President, there is one other possibility that we have not covered as to why we should invoke cloture, and that is an approach that used to be used by my own father when he was a Member of this body back in 1932 and 1933. A single Senator can have an amendment that cannot even command a majority vote and that Senator could stand up here and filibuster, and take the view that he is not going to let the bill be passed and let that bill go by unless the Senate puts on there something he thinks important to a lot of people in the country.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, is the Senator from Colorado correct that vote will occur at 2 p.m. on cloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator is not correct, that the vote on cloture will occur at 3 p.m. and what will occur at 2 p.m. is an hour of debate on the conference report that will commence at that time.
Mr. STEVENS. That is not correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair. has been readvised and, therefore, must change what he said a moment ago. The vote on cloture will occur at 4 p.m. and not before that and prior to that there are votes scheduled at 3:20 p.m. on the Heinz amendment.
Mr. HART. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. HART. The Senator from Colorado has a major amendment upon which he has worked for a considerable number of months that is germane to the tax bill. The inquiry is that if cloture is invoked at 4 p.m., will it be the case that the germane amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado will be limited to 1 hour of debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that if the cloture vote should succeed, if cloture should be invoked, all Senators from that point on will have 1 hour of time for all amendments that they might offer, or use on one amendment, or any other remarks they wish to make after that 1 hour.
Mr. HART. Therefore, if cloture is invoked at 4 p.m., any Senator having a germane amendment or a series of germane amendments, or who wishes to debate on any elements of the pending legislation; namely the tax bill, the total time for any of those purposes will be limited to 1 hour; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
Mr. HART. I thank the Chair.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me on one question about this bill?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. STEVENS. My understanding is that we now face the problem of nongermane amendments. We have the Muskie sunset bill, of which I am a co-sponsor, incidentally. We have the Humphrey-Hawkins bill coming from the Senator from Wisconsin. We have the Glenn version of the tax expenditure sunset coming along. Just how can those survive a tax conference? What is the expertise and the ways and means in those areas? Why should we not find some way to limit this bill so it is not going to be a Christmas tree on the broad spectrum of any legislation at this time? Why should this bill be held hostage? This, I understood, was the key bill toward our adjournment on October 14. These other issues can stand or fall on their own.
I support the bill of the Senator from Maine. But it could be offered to another bill. There are other bills that are going to pass here, I might say, that are not so controversial and do not in and of themselves have to have cloture.
I wish to know: Is there anything the Senator knows we can do to get this tax bill to the point where we might be able to vote on tax issues and bring the American people the tax relief that we think they need?
Mr. LONG. What you have to do when you have a lot of major controversial bills left at the end of a Congress, what you have to do, is pass one and then pass the other one, and then pass the other one instead of having controversy on top of controversy on top of controversy.
I neglected to mention one of the other items. I thought we had finally worked out this thing about user charges on the waterways. I thought we had so far as Mr. DOMENICI was concerned, and I thought we had as far as I was concerned. But an additional problem arose that has to do with environmental matters in the courts, how long the judge might take and decide the environmental aspect of it. That has caused the Senator from Missouri to want to take another look at it and to review all that.
The point about all this is, the Senator will recall how long we took debating the waterway legislation, the tolls on the waterways, and locks and Dam 26. Well, now that should be resolved. But I do not think we would try to resolve it on this bill. We ought to put that on some other bill, and we will. But the idea of piling it all on top of this one bill makes one suspect that those who are doing it are not really interested in passing the tax cut bill at all because if you really wanted to pass it, it seems to me, you ought to keep the tax cut bill directed toward the controversies involved in taxes.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. Two of the nongermane amendments on the bill the Senator from Wisconsin did offer, one of them on Saturday and another one the day before, I believe.
I agree with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana and the distinguished Senator from Alaska. The only reason I offered these two nongermane amendments was that there is no other way to get them considered. The Humphrey-Hawkins bill had been reported from the Human Resources Committee months ago. Hospital cost containments have been having hearings, consideration, for a year and a half. I would be prepared to vote cloture with an understanding that there be a bill on the floor or two bills on which we can offer Humphrey-Hawkins, another one hospital cost containments, agree to a time limitation, take them off this bill and get a vote on it. I would be very happy to do that.
But if we are foreclosed from getting them before the Senate under any other circumstances, there is no alternative, and I regret that very much. But I want it understood that this Senator stands ready to pull down these two amendments and agree to a time limitation on any two other bills that anybody can bring up.
There are some bills from the Finance Committee, small ones, and I want the Senator to know that I am prepared to do it any minute and, in fact, if there cannot be a time limitation on Humphrey-Hawkins, I would still be prepared to pull it down to give us a chance to debate and vote on the question of cloture.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for just 1 more second?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me again say — it is asking my good friend from Wisconsin a question through the Senator from Louisiana. Why should not some of us who have some legislation we would like to get off the books start doing it? I would like to get that Gun Control Act off the books. It has been an impediment to the people in my State for a long time. If you want to take up this Senate for a long time, we will start doing it. There is no place to do it. The people of the United States deserve this tax cut, and you are going to get us in position where all of the people who are opposed to some of the things the Senator is suggesting are going to join together and defeat this tax bill. That should not happen.
I ask the Senator is it not true that there are other bills coming through here that have equal priority? There is no reason why Humphrey-Hawkins, and sunset, and all the rest of them, have to be on this bill. There are other bills going to be called up this week that have equal priority and are going to be debated, and they are not subject to any germaneness rule either until there is a time agreement.
I think to say that only the tax bill can take nongermane riders and nothing else at this stage of the Senate is wrong. Does not the Senator agree with that? There are bills coming after this one. We could get this one to the President in clean shape, as I understand it. There will be a tough time getting it signed just as it is.
Mr. LONG. Well, Mr. President, I would hope I can vote for the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. I must confess there is a lot in the bill I just do not understand. I have not had a chance to study it and do justice to it. I do not know whether I can vote for it right now. Maybe I will have to vote for some amendments first.
But as I understand, I know I am for the purpose of the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. All right. I would like to vote for something to advance that purpose. So knowing all the details I would like to vote for something like that.
But on the principle of whether we are going to take the view that we are going to hold this bill hostage for the Humphrey-Hawkins bill or for the textile quota bill or for the waterway user bill, which I am strongly for, or for the sugar Act or a dozen other worthwhile legislative proposals that have merit in varying degrees, whether you are going to hold this bill up for all these things is a decision the Senate wants to make.
If that is what you want to do, the leadership ought to just come to the committee chairman and ask that he lay this bill aside. And we will just lay it aside and then we will just go and consider these other measures, and then I will come back to the tax bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's argument fully. I do not think there is a Senator on this floor who would push for this orderly procedure harder than I. I have spoken in large measure for the budget process. I tried to protect its orderly procedure. I tried to push it for sunset, and sunset is designed to bring this orderly procedure about.
I tried the nice-guy route, may I say to the Senator. I waited for 3 years to get a vote on sunset, 3 years, and in bringing sunset to the floor on this bill this is the first time I have gotten close to getting Senate consideration of sunset during that entire period.
Now, that is orderly procedure. I do not like to be offering it to the tax bill. I tried earlier, within the last 2 weeks, to get it on the Export-Import Bank bill. I tried to get a time agreement, to vote on it. But nobody would agree, so we sank the bill.
I am all for the Senator and his argument for orderly procedure. But the suggestion that nongermane items are more controversial than germane items to the tax bill is a thesis that I thoroughly reject. This tax bill came out out of the committee with roughly $1.4 billion of room left in it for the energy tax bill, another high tax bill. There have been over 14 amendments adopted that have completely used up that $1.4 billion; germane amendments that have completely used up that $1.4 billion.
These amendments have been put into the bill with minimal first year costs, but when you look at future year costs there is a great deal of controversy with the germane items that have been added to this bill. And, the Senator knows this.
When the Senator from Alaska suggests that it is only nongermane amendments that make tax bills Christmas trees, I cannot believe he has been around here for the last 10 years. Tax bills have been Christmas trees because of germane amendments, not because of non-germane amendments.
To suggest that some of these germane amendments we have adopted, that have chewed up that $1.4 billion of room, are more important than sunset or Humphrey-Hawkins is a laughable argument. It is not that everybody will support Humphrey-Hawkins or sunset. I have a list of the other amendments here. There is none that is as important as these two nongermane items.
I understand the Senator from Louisiana's frustration, and I sympathize with him fully, and he knows that. As a matter of fact, we have sort of a strange partnership going on with respect to this tax bill; we are going to try to keep it fiscally responsible. I enjoy working in harness with him on it. But the real issue on the first cloture amendment — and the Senator has stated it — is whether or not the Senate wants to consider these nongermane amendments. The Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has made the only argument which, as floor manager of this bill, he ought to make, because he is protecting his legislative vehicle.
But, on the other hand, while we will not persuade the Senator from Louisiana those of us who believe strongly in some of these other issues are going to make another argument to the Senate as a whole; let us have a chance to vote on these other important matters, because really there is not any practical other route available to us.
I have searched for another route on sunset for 3 years, and never have been able to find one, being a nice guy, and now I am going to try to make this one an effective route. The Senator understands that is my purpose, and that we are in disagreement about it, but that is the issue on the first cloture vote.
I hope that Senators are sufficiently interested in the high priority nature of sunset so that they will say, "Let us at least vote on it one way or the other."
If we vote on it and the Senate adopts it, I have such confidence in the conference capability of the Senator from Louisiana that if the Senate supports sunset strongly enough, he will defend the Senate's position; urge the House, perhaps to take the issue to the House floor for a vote up or down, but we will get rid of it, either adopt it or get rid of it. That is all I ask, that kind of assurance.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator's statement be charged against his time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, take it out of my time.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I cannot hear the Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?