June 20, 1975
Page 20121
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I gather that the Senator is as frustrated as I am by repeated questions from people in New Hampshire as to why we do not send it back.
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Questions raised by the amendment which the Senator Connecticut offered a few days ago.
The real question is, when do we decide, and under what guidelines do we decide, any election in New Hampshire — the one that was held last November, or the one that the Senator from Connecticut would like to decide? Do we say that every time an election is decided by a margin of 12 votes or less, or 10 votes or less, or 2 votes or less, the Senate shall consider it a tie vote and send it back? Or should it be 100 votes or less or 200 votes or less?
In other words, is the Senator proposing to us that some margins are so close that they should be
treated as tie votes whether or not they are? If the people of New Hampshire want their elections decided that way, then they can adopt legislation saying so — saying, in effect that any election decided by a margin of less than some number shall be treated as a tie vote, in order to avoid these sticky issues, so that the Senate will not be faced with these issues. Let us look at that.
Suppose New Hampshire adopts some legislation that says that any election decided by a margin of 50 votes or less shall be treated as though it were a tie and has to go back to the voters. Then we come to this question: suppose the next election is decided by a margin of 51. And 50 being treated as a tie vote, we begin the process all over again. We begin to argue as to whether or not there was a one-vote margin above the 50.
The point I am making is that in 200 years, this is the closest election for the Senate in the history of the country. This is the one time when an election was so close that it comes down to a matter of a couple of dozen ballots or thereabout .
What the Senator is saying is that because that rare instance has arisen, the Senate should abandon its constitutional responsibility—
Mr WEICKER. I wish the Senator would speak for himself. I wish the Senator would go ahead and quote himself. I did not say that.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is how I characterize what the Senator is saying.
Mr. WEICKER The Senator is entitled to speak for himself but not to paraphrase the Senator from Connecticut.
MUSKIE. I have heard the Senator from Connecticut paraphrasing other Senators, characterizing this side of the aisle, and characterizing that side of the aisle. I do not think the Senator has any exclusive prerogative with respect to figures of speech.
I say that we have a constitutional responsibility, and the decisions of the Ballot Law Commission go to the Senate on appeal, if I understand New Hampshire law. But there is also a constitutional requirement. If it is said that because we are dealing with only a handful of ballots about which Senators across the party line are arguing, we should send it back to New Hampshire without an attempt to resolve them, as though an election had not already been held, it seems to me, that is an abandonment, to put it in my words. It is an abandonment of our constitutional responsibility.
I gather that this is what the Senator is asking.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Exactly.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have not made up my mind finally on these ballot issues. Frankly, given the time that the minority seems determined to spend on other questions, I have postponed a complete study of those issues on the assumption that I may never have to decide them, that we may grind down to New Year’s Eve without having decided these questions. Frankly, I suggest that the provocation to partisanship with respect to those ballots does not come from just one side of the aisle.
I agree with the Senator from Connecticut that the image that is going out of this Capitol to the country is partisanship, delay and filibustering, and all of those characteristics traditionally associated with the Senate of the United States and Congress. We are doing the institution no good. We could do the institution a great deal of good if we would just get down to the issues that have been brought to the body properly by an established committee of the Senate, decide them, and determine whether or not a result has been achieved. If it has not and if we are unhappy with it, then we can carry the fight on from there.
On that one point, this image, I concur 100 percent with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
I commend him, incidentally, for his independence of mind, as reflected in his votes on some of the earlier procedural questions. What I am saying is not a criticism of the Senator, but simply a
comment on this constant question that has arisen — why does not the Senate send this back to New Hampshire? I think I have a responsibility here first. Once having discharged that responsibility, if no result is indicated, then I shall support a move to send it back to the people of New Hampshire. But to ask me to do it before I have had a chance to vote on the issues which have been properly brought to this floor by the Committee on Rules is something I am going to reject every time the issue is raised, in whatever form, by Members on that side of the aisle.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for stating as eloquently and as forcefully as—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Minnesota that the Senator from Connecticut still has the floor.
Mr. HUMPHREY. No, am sorry, Mr. President. I had the floor. The Senator from Connecticut had released the floor and I had been recognized in my own right.
Mr WEICKER. Mr President, it makes no difference, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HUMPHREY. It is a matter of procedure, because the Senator from Minnesota had the floor in his own right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. HUMPHREY. As I was saying, the Senator from Maine has given what I believe is eloquent and forceful testimony as to what this issue is all about. The answer here for the Senate is, first of all to debate; second, to vote upon the eight issues that have been brought to our attention by the Committee on Rules and brought here for purposes of some reconciliation or decision and, secondly) the 27 contested ballots. On our way, we may not all agree. As has been said here we may not be able to arrive at a definitive answer. Then is the time to consider what, if anything else, needs to be done. But there is no doubt that for better than 1 week, or at least several days, we have been arguing on things that are not directly related to the issues that the Committee on Rules has found that they could not resolve and that the Senate ought to resolve.
That is what I believe the issue is. One can say that it is not delay or — I do not like to use the word "filibuster" because I think it has been used too easily in the Senate. I think there is a necessity for full debate and a matter of this consequence, which is essentially a constitutional issue, a matter of this importance deserves very careful consideration. We cannot avoid that constitutional responsibility.
I add also that a new election, when the candidates are yet alive and have not been disqualified under law, would be an abridgement of our constitutional responsibilities. It is not as if an election were held and the one who had won it was either incapacitated or was killed or passed away. The candidates are here both of them with all their talents and capacities.
The election results were tabulated once, recounted, and a certification as to the winner was made. Then it was in dispute before the ballot commission and from the ballot commission, it came here to the Senate which is the only place it can go. The Senate now has the responsibility as the able Senator from Maine has said, to dispose of these issues one way or another. Up to now, we have not heard any discussion, really, of the issues.
It is a fact that many of us are not here on the floor of the Senate for reasons. Why? It is just a waste of time when there are other things to do. But when we get down to where we are going to discuss the issues that are in contest and the 27 ballots, I suggest that we have everybody here and that we listen to the entire debate.
But as long as there is going to be all of this monkey business, where we are going to be arguing about extraneous issues, where we are going to be seeing if we cannot send it back or this or that — I am not accusing anybody, they have their rights, but that does not get down to the issue.
I am of the opinion that once we get to the issues, the Senators will be here. And, Mr. President, there is not a member of this body, knowing that all of us have been elected, and all of us might one day or another, or some of us, at least, be faced with the same set of circumstances, who would not have upon his conscience the responsibility to listen to the argument and to vote according to his conscience.
I listened to the able Senator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD). BOB BYRD is about as able and decent a man as we are going to find, and he is independent in his judgment. He stood up here on the floor, time after time, and argued with his own majority party, argued against some of the positions that a majority of us in this party, on this side of the aisle, have taken. I do not think anybody controls the distinguished Majority whip's vote, not one bit. And I
do not think anybody owns mine, either.
In fact, I have told people who have come to see me that I shall vote it as I see it. That is one of the reasons I have not participated much in the debate — one time before — because I do not think this is a place where we make some kind of partisan stand as such. But if there are going to be procedural issues of delay, then we are going to take a partisan stand until we can get down to the issues brought here by the Committee on Rules.
I think that the Senator from South Carolina made a very valuable observation. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules handled all of the problems that related to the nomination of the former Vice President, Gerald Ford, now the President of the United States. There were some of us in this body who recommended a special committee; the Senators may recall. And the
Chairman of our Committee on Rules said, "Let us see if we cannot handle it; we will give an honest, solid hearing and we will report our results."
He handled it, and his Committee on Rules handled it. And everybody here stood up and praised the Committee on Rules and praised, particularly the chairman.
Then came the nomination of the distinguished Vice President, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, a highly contentious nomination. I was one who was for him, said so early. But the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules conducted those hearings. Those hearings were held over a period of time and he stuck with his job and brought in that recommendation, an overwhelming vote of confirmation.
I think if I can trust the chairman of the Committee on Rules as to who is going to be President of the United States, and as to who is going to be Vice President of the United States — and that is what it boiled down to — I think I can afford to trust some of his judgment, at least. At least I can afford to trust his recommendations, or at least I can afford to trust those issues that he thinks we ought to resolve. I think I can do that on the basis of one U.S. Senator from New Hampshire or any other State — not in any way to downgrade the importance of any Member of this body. But we have trusted and placed our faith in the procedures of the Committee on Rules on two of the most important issues in our history.
Never before in the history of this Republic have we had the set of circumstances that we have today, with a President and Vice President, both of whom have been selected under the 25th amendment, both of whom have had to be processed by the Committee on Rules, both of whom have had to look to the chairman of the Committee on Rules. And in both of those two instances, there is not a Senator here who will fault the chairman of the Committee on Rules or the procedures that the committee followed. Not one of us.
In fact, every one of us, privately or publicly, has praised the chairman and the committee.
Now we come down to a senatorial election in which the vote on a recount went to Mr. Durkin, in which the original vote before the recount went to Mr. Wyman, both good men. But, under the law, the recount was asked for and the recount gave it to Mr. Durkin, and that election was certified to the U.S. Senate. The procedures have been followed according to law, according to New Hampshire law, according to congressional precedent, and according to the Constitution of the United States which is above any statute, any statute. That is the binding law, that is the supreme law of the land.
As the Senator from Maine has said, until we have done our duty under article I, section 5, I believe it is, of the Constitution, until we have done our duty, we cannot in any way push this aside. We cannot say "away" or "begone."
The easy thing to do would be to do it. The easy thing to do would be to go back to New Hampshire and do it all over again. But that is not what we are here for, and I want to say if it went back to New Hampshire the circumstances in the months ahead are different from the circumstances at the time of the election. You cannot replay that. There are not even the same people there nor the same economic and political conditions.
I hope we can proceed with the regular order, and if we want to show that this body is responsible, if we really want to show the public that we know what we are doing and that we are very sincere in our responsibilities, I suggest that we call up the respective sections of the resolution that is before us and start to argue it, debate it. If it takes time, so it takes time. I am not opposed to the fact that it takes time to discuss each of the eight issues. But let us get them up.
I have got one other suggestion. If we really want to make sure we are not delaying, let us have an agreement upon time. We have agreed upon time on every conceivable bill around here. We have agreed upon time on the defense appropriations; we have agreed upon time on practically every measure.
If the time is 5 hours, 6 hours per issue or 5 hours, 10 hours per ballot, let us agree upon something, and then we can at least say to the public that we know what we are doing.
Senators will be able to schedule their time accordingly. We will be able to tell our people who come to see us, "Look, this is our responsibility. There is a 5-hour debate" or a 4-hour debate or a 2-hour debate "on a particular issue, and I want to be there and hear it." Because when those issues come up I think we ought to be here. I think we ought to be here, but if you never know when they are coming up, if you never know how long the debate is going to last, if you have no idea what is going to occur, you know what is going to happen, we are going to do as we always do. We will do what we have available to us in our offices, in our respective assignments. We will take care of what we need to do there and we will not be here.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I have been coming onto the floor for the past week, and I have not seen a ballot yet. Let me repeat, I have not seen a ballot yet. I have heard a lot about whether we should go back to New Hampshire or stay here in Washington, but I have not seen a single ballot and, as I understand it, that is the issue before the Senate now. There are certain ballots where there was a tie vote, and they have come back to get a decision before they can start counting, and I understand that the committee has not counted yet. They do not know who won and who lost. They want to find out what the Senate feels about these disputed ballots.
Once they have decided that, I understand they will go back and make a count. If you do not like the count then we will come back here. If it comes out even we will send it back for another election.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Exactly.
Mr. PASTORE. If it does not come out even we will stand up and say whether it is Wyman or Durkin. But give us a chance to say. That is all we want to hear. We want to reach a decision, and all we get is this gobbledygook about section (1) and section (2) , and we are reading the statutes of New Hampshire. Let us look at the ballots.
I have been here for a week, and I have not see a ballot yet, and I would like to see what a New Hampshire ballot looks like.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President—
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I would be glad to yield the floor.
Mr. McCLURE. The Senator made a misstatement of fact, and I am sure he would not want to leave a misstatement in the RECORD.
The Senator, in his very eloquent remarks, said that we have not dealt with any of the issues yet.
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct.
Mr. McCLURE. That is not correct. The Senate yesterday dealt with issue No. 8 which is in the resolution. It was debated at length.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I stand corrected; the Senator is correct. I am speaking basically of what the Senator from Rhode Island has said about what are the fundamental issues about these ballots. We are supposed to make some advisory recommendations, some comment on those.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.
Mr. McCLURE. The Senator suggested that we take the resolution and go through it.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am for that.
Mr. McCLURE. The first eight issues do not involve looking at a single ballot.
Mr. HUMPHREY. All right, let us go at it then.
Mr. McCLURE. That, I think, is exactly what the Senator from Connecticut has said right now.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Let us start with issue No. 1 and run right on down, and then let us run down the ballots. Let us not make something that is uncomplicated, complicated.
The issues are there. They are there and they can be voted upon.
Mr. CURTIS addressed the Chair.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I think the only thing here to do is to proceed accordingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. WEICKER. I would like to, if I might, respond to just a couple of points raised in this debate.
This amendment of the Senator from Connecticut has nothing to do with sending the election back to New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with sending the election back to New Hampshire, let me repeat. It has nothing to do with sending the election back to New Hampshire by August 1 or July 1 or by any other date.
Both the distinguished Senator from Minnesota and the distinguished Senator from Maine should understand that what the Senator from Connecticut is doing in this amendment is to have the matter decided by the U.S. Senate. I abide by the decision of my colleagues, which was made on Tuesday, not to send it back to New Hampshire.
What I have done here is to suggest that in section (1), not as a procedural matter, but as a matter of substance, that those precincts requested by Mr. Wyman to be counted have added to them those precincts requested by Mr. Durkin, and that the counting process start and it proceed while we are deciding the other issues. That is what was requested, not an abrogation of our constitutional authority.
Point No. 2: Just to keep the record straight, and I think it is important even though, sometimes what we say seemingly acts against us, if the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is going to refer to an election won by Mr. Wyman and a recount won by Mr. Durkin, then he ought to at least close the New Hampshire ring and say that the recount of the recount, which is by the ballot law commission, was won by Mr. Wyman. That is a fair presentation of all the facts. It does not say it is not subject to a review by the Senate but it is an accurate description of the facts to close the ring and give all the steps of the procedure.
To my distinguished friend from Maine, I would only ask this: If I am not mistaken, at the present time in a House election in Maine a protest has been filed. I would ask the distinguished Senator from Maine what the action of the House has been in that matter. If I am not mistaken, it is to seat the current winner, although they have not given up their right to make a final determination. Have we used the same procedure here in the U.S. Senate?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, in this case there were two certificates of election. The Durkin one arrived first, and the Wyman one arrived second. My recollection as to the details is not as sharp as it was at the time of that debate. But that circumstance did not obtain in the First District race of Maine at all.
Incidentally, I am not involved in that procedure and I am not familiar with the issues that have been pursued.
May I say, in addition, in the Senate we did the same thing. We seated the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator BELLMON, even though his election was challenged. The Oklahoma Senate seat and the First District seat in Maine are comparable situations. This New Hampshire thing is an entirely different problem as I saw it then and as I still see it.