July 20, 1973
Page 25104
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, in brief my amendment would strike almost all of the sentence describing the effective date of S. 440 in section 9. Section 9, when originally added to the bill was a viable section, because then we were operating in the context of a continuing war being experienced in Southeast Asia. However, since the introduction of the bill this year and since the hearings on it in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and finally its consideration now on the floor of the Senate, we have had intervening events, which, in my opinion, make the continuation of section 9 an anachronism. Among those events has been the withdrawal of troops from Southeast Asia, and more recently the so-called Cambodian compromise by which August 15 was set as the final date for the cessation of all American military participation in Southeast Asia.
The purpose of my amendment is simply to strike out those anachronistic parts which are no longer effective and to assure that the provisions of S. 440 go into effect immediately on the date of enactment.
In addition, this would incorporate in S. 440 identical language to that appearing in the House bill on war powers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I shall be very brief.
The amendment has been under consideration by the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and me. Developments since the bill was approved by the committee do create something of a problem.
The provision now in the bill has apparently been covered by the so-called Cambodian compromise adopted a couple of weeks ago. Still, we have not arrived at the date of August 15. But in anticipation of the termination of all U.S. military activities in Indochina by that date, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], and I are willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. President, at this time I yield to the Senator from New York to discuss the matter more fully with the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Missouri has given me very great concern, primarily because we must all remember that this is a bill, as I said when we opened the debate, that has gone through an unbelievable examination.
We have always felt and have consistently made the point that there is no retroactive intent in connection with the bill. We would not provide for retroactivity if we adopted the amendment. The bill would say that it would actually take effect on the date of its enactment. Nevertheless, we thought that there had to be no argument about the hostilities in Vietnam. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] was very strongly of that view.
We felt the same way when the bill went through the committee about the hostilities in Cambodia. Again, notwithstanding the deep objections we had – which goes for the Senator from Missouri and myself and a great majority of the committee with respect to Cambodia – we still did not wish to bring this bill into that kind of retroactivity.
We do now face a different situation, as has properly been argued. We have adopted the so-called continuing resolution with a cutoff date, and we have a right to assume that will represent an end of everything related to the war in Indochina. So, one could say, as the Senator from Missouri has undoubtedly made clear – although I was not present in the Chamber at that particular instance – that this retroactivity clause he seeks to strike is moot. On the other hand, I am sure that it will take some months for the bill to become law. And, without any question, no one ever knows what may occur.
Also there are rumors, and Washington is always full of them, that the President may seek an extension of the August 15 date.
I rather sense that is another reason that the Senator from Missouri is anxious for his amendment, to serve notice that this will not be very kindly received around here. I think that I would be very much in accord with that notice myself.
I would like, before I agree, to make one further appeal to the Senator from Missouri.
We will take the amendment. if he wants us to take it. However, I would like to lay one fact before him. The House has stricken the provision, and if we strike it out of here, we will have nothing to confer about on that matter.
In view of the fact that the House struck the section out of House Joint Resolution 542 on the floor, we would have nothing to confer about and nothing to do in conference with this particular question if in the next 30 days or 60 days some new situation should develop. That is the disadvantage. However, I cannot use that disadvantage as a decisive argument against the amendment.
I can only say to the Senator from Missouri that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] most reluctantly and I most reluctantly and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] most reluctantly will take the amendment, but we would still commend to his consideration the fact that it would be strictly a matter in conference and that we should leave ourselves room for maneuvering in so delicate a situation.
If the Senator feels absolutely decided on this, we will agree to accept the amendment.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, without any degree of reluctance I say to the Senator from New York that it is anachronistic. It stands for nothing in the context of today's situation. I would like to go forward with the amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another question, it is our understanding that the only reason for striking this clause is the fact that precisely the question sought to be dealt with by this clause has been dealt with by the so-called Cambodian compromise in the continuing resolution, the date being August 15.
Mr. EAGLETON. The Senator is correct.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, under those circumstances, I have no objection to the amendment.