October 9, 1978
Page 34781
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Let me say this, too, Mr. President, on the part of other Senators who may disagree with me. I take the whole burden of urging that there be no appeal of the ruling of the Chair. I make that appeal myself to all Senators, not to appeal this ruling because the appeal is wrong, the amendment obviously is not germane I do not believe that the appeal would carry, and if the appeal were made and failed I think the chances then of being successful in getting the Humphrey-Hawkins measure up and getting cloture on it would be nil.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I do not intend to appeal the ruling of the Chair on this measure, but I hope that when we complete the tax bill, which we may be able now to do by tomorrow evening, we shall have an opportunity to vote on or to get a chance to take up Humphrey- Hawkins. I, along with a number of others, shall make every effort to see that that is done.
AMENDMENT NO. 3681, AS MODIFIED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. LONG. I make the point of order, Mr. President, that the amendment is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what was the item?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
AMENDMENT NO. 3678, AS MODIFIED
The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. LONG. I make the point of order, Mr. President, that that amendment is not germane.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is this the sunset amendment?
The PRESIDENT OFFICER. The Senator is correct.-
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. Does the Senator from Maine desire to appeal the decision of the Chair?
Mr. MUSKIE. In light of the fact that I shall have no other opportunity to get a vote on this issue on its own merits, which I have not yet had—
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, is this—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a ruling on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio that the amendment is not germane. The Chair has now ruled that the amendment of the Senator from Maine is not germane.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the ruling that I should like to appeal, because I see no other chance to give the Senators a chance to vote on sunset on its merits in this session. After 3 years, I should at least like to have that satisfaction.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his appeal for just a moment, long enough for me to make a brief statement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine withhold his appeal long enough for the Senator from Louisiana to make a brief statement?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the whole idea of cloture is that the Senate agrees that it is going to limit itself to germane amendments. To do anything other than that is to ask the Senate to stultify itself after having voted to limit itself to germaneness:
The Senator from Maine himself stood there and asked the Senate to vote against cloture earlier, because his amendment would not be in order for the simple reason that it would not be germane. At this point, to ask the Senate to rule that it is germane after the Senator himself said it is not germane is to ask this Senate to stultify itself. If we are going to do that, we might as well not have a cloture rule, because anyone can get up and offer amendments to anything, an appropriation bill or anything else, and ask the Senate to vote on its merits when it is clearly out of order.
The Senator from Maine has kept amendments from being offered as much as anyone, under the budget rule. We have not asked anyone to say what means, but when the Senate agrees in advance that an amendment is not germane, and the Senator himself said it is not, he should not then proceed to appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask that it be germane.
Mr. CHILES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. CHILES. If my memory serves me right, the Senator who is the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has appealed a ruling on a point of order and had overruled a point of order that was given by the Chair, has he not, on a point raised by the chairman of the Budget Committee. That is all. right, I guess: that does not violate anything, if the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee wants to appeal something.
Mr. LONG. We were talking about an interpretation of the Budget Act and what it means. We were not talking about an amendment that everybody agreed in advance was not germane.
Mr. CHILES. I thought we were talking about rules of the Senate and I thought we were talking about what we passed in here and rules of the Senate and whether they are going to be followed, whether we are going to follow the Parliamentarian and the rules or not. It seems to me the sauce is just the same on the goose as it is on the gander if we are talking about that.
Mr. LONG. Those who vote against cloture can very well contend that they did not vote for cloture and they are not going to abide by the cloture rule. When one votes for cloture, that is a gentlemen's compact at a minimum that you are going to limit this to germaneness:
Mr. CHILES. This gentleman here has a contract and that contract should be just as binding that I am going to follow the Parliamentarian in all matters or not follow him, period; that I am going to follow my own persuasion when I want to, or I am going to follow the rules. It seems to me that that is the kind of contract we are talking about here. It seems to me the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is saying, "No, I want to overrule the Chair when it affects my domain or something I am interested in, but don't overrule that Chair if you are affecting something that I am on the other side of."
Mr. LONG. Any Senator has the right to appeal the ruling of the Chair. Every Senator has a right to do so. But I implore the Senate, having agreed that it is going to limit itself to germaneness, to be true to what it, itself, just agreed to when it voted the cloture rule, that all amendments must be germane. It was agreed to in advance that this amendment was not germane and the sponsors of it asked us to vote against cloture for that reason. Therefore, Mr. President, I hope the appeal will not be made.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may have a couple of minutes to respond to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ABOUREZK) . Will the Senator suspend for just a minute until we get order in the Chamber?
The Senator from Maine is recognized on his own time. The Chair will ask for order in the Chamber so we can hear what is being said.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first of all, I think the distinguished Senator from Florida is right on target. The chairman of the Committee on Finance appealed the ruling of the Chair on a point of order that I raised — that I still think was valid — that I think was overruled by the Senate as a whole, because the Senate was more interested in the substantive issue before it than in the point of order. Regardless, if it is the prerogative of the chairman of the Committee on Finance to appeal the ruling of the Chair, it seems to me I have at least the same prerogative.
Second, I did not initiate the cloture motion rule. That was initiated by the majority leader and the chairman of the Committee on Finance in order to cut me off, with a nongermane amendment, because they wanted to proceed to the business of the Senate, which was the tax bill, which is their prerogative.
I was then left with no option but to file a cloture motion to try to protect my rights. I wanted to vote. I was not seeking to delay, I was not filibustering.
Those who offered the first cloture motion, which has now been approved by the Senate, now seek to sustain that motion on the idea that I was filibustering. They are the people who are killing time, and are the people who are trying to kill sunset. So, I have no choice.
I make my argument not in terms of the parliamentary situation, but in broad terms. If we are considering, as we are, a tax reduction bill that would cut revenues by $50 billion in the first full year — if we are talking about that, then it is relevant, in the broad sense if not the parliamentary sense, to be doing everything we can to insure that spending is cut as well. That is what sunset is all about.
This sunset provision does not have the Glenn amendment on it, it does not have anything else on it. It is just the pure mechanism to control spending that a majority of this Senate has indicated support for; even if we cannot control revenues, to control spending. Even in that broad sense, I expect I shall lose, given the vote on cloture that was taken awhile ago. But at least, on the question of germaneness, I shall have the only vote, apparently, that I am going to get in this session, the only vote I am going to get, after 3 years of effort, on sunset. So, I say to the Senator,
I am going to appeal in order to get that vote even if I do not get any vote except my own.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. LONG. Does the Senator from Maine really contend, does he seriously contend that under the precedents on cloture, his amendment is germane?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have said, if the Senator had been listening instead of working up his indignation against me, that in terms of the parliamentary situation, I may not be germane. But in the broad, practical, policymaking sense, if you try to tell me that cutting spending is not related to cutting taxes, then all you believe in is escalating deficits. I say they are related in the broad policy-related sense and I am going to ask for a vote on germaneness, because it is the only kind of vote I can get in this session after 3 years of effort. If I lose it, and if I am the only Senator voting for it, I am going to get a vote. I do not know of any way to deny me that vote.
Mr. LONG addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. So I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. LONG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal is not debatable. The question is
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on my own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine, in referring to the cloture motion that had been offered, said that the Senator from Louisiana and the majority leader had offered the cloture motion in order to "try to cut me off."
Of course, I did not have the Senator's amendment in mind when I offered the cloture motion. I offered it in order to cut off all nongermane amendments. I did not do so with any intent to direct it to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that. I made that statement in the context of my sitting here all this morning, and Saturday afternoon, listening to nongermane amendment after nongermane amendment, of much less consequence than this one, be considered, accepted by the floor managers, and adopted by the Senate.
But now I am told that this nongermane amendment ought not be considered. The effect of the cloture motion was to cut off nongermane amendments, and it has done that. I accept that, but it forces me into the corner where there is only one way I can get a vote. This is it.
But I did not mean, and I apologize if I implied, that the majority leader was zeroing in on my situation, because I know he was not.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, may I now have 2 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr, President, I have urged those Senators who were very interested in the Humphrey-Hawkins amendment not to appeal the ruling of the Chair, and they acceded to my request.
I cannot, in good conscience, then support this appeal.
I would hope the distinguished Senator from Maine would not press his appeal. The amendment is obviously not germane.
I support the sunset amendment. I voted with the distinguished Senator from Maine the other day in the fracas over the budget matter. I voted against the Senator from Louisiana's position that day. I voted with the Senator from Maine, and having urged Senators who are very supportive of the Humphrey-Hawkins not to appeal the ruling of the Chair, I would hope the Senator would not appeal the ruling.
If he does, I will have to vote against the appeal and uphold the Chair because the amendment is obviously not germane.
If cloture is going to mean anything, it means that nongermane amendments are not in order, no matter how appealing they may be on the surface.
I would hope, I say with all due respect to my friend from Maine, I would hope if he presses the appeal that the Senate will uphold the Chair.
I support his amendment, but I do not think this is the way to go about it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may say this, I have a sneaking idea — I will not say anything more — that Humphrey-Hawkins is going to get another chance at a vote.
There is nothing to indicate I will get another chance at a vote on sunset in this session.
The distinguished majority leader knows I cooperate with him in every way I can at any time. I think he has done a tremendous job in the last 2 years leading this Senate, dealing with some of the most difficult issues that I have ever seen the Senate have to face, and I have great respect and affection for him. But I just cannot let a third year in a row go by without some indication of whether this idea, which I think the people in the country support, is a sensible idea that deserves consideration.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I ask the majority leader whether he cannot give the Senator from Maine the assurance that he will have a vote before the session is over on sunset?
I followed my chairman of the Finance Committee, but I am in complete agreement with the Senator from Maine that there is not a more important piece of legislation that this Congress, or any succeeding Congress, can adopt than sunset legislation if we really are for economy in Government.
I agree with the Senator from Maine that it does have an impact on the tax bill because if there ever is a way of cutting unnecessary expenditures and having program evaluation, it is the sunset proposal of the Senator from Maine.
I am wondering if the Senator cannot give him the assurance. It would seem to me that in a day or so we will be finished with the tax bill. It is going to take at least 3 more days to go through conference. The Senate will have business until Saturday. I think for this body and the country we should go on record that we are for the Senator from Maine's sunset proposal.
Can the Senator not give the Senator from Maine that assurance?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I can give him assurance that I will try.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2 minutes of the Senator from West Virginia have expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I will try. First, I promised Senators who are supporting Humphrey- Hawkins I would try to get that up, and, second to that, I will try to help the Senator get a vote on sunset.
Mr. MUSKIE. On that promise, Mr. President, because I know the majority leader is a man of his word, because I, personally, instinctively recoil against stretching the precedents of the Senate too far, I will withhold my appeal and work with the Senator to try to get a vehicle that will enable us an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote on sunset. I would like to get a vote this week on sunset.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would state that it requires unanimous consent to withdraw the appeal since the yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may withdraw the appeal under the circumstances we discussed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.