September 11, 1975
Page 28715
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the comments of the distinguished acting minority leader. He has not really presented to the Senate the full picture. He speaks of this offer from the minority as though it were addressed to a Mansfield proposal which had an October 15 date in it for the expiration of section 4(g) (2) authority and October 31 for the expiration of controls. No such offer was made officially to the Republican side whatsoever. The Mansfield proposal — and I describe it again to make it clear — is this: A 60-day extension of controls from the date of enactment. That is about November 15. The first 45 days of that 60-day period was to represent a suspension of section (g) (2) authority. That would be roughly November 1. That is the position that we start with.
I do not recall hearing an October 15 proposal advanced except by a single Senator on this side as a good-faith effort to offer a constructive suggestion. But there has been no offer of compromise on the part of the majority.
I shall repeat why 60 days and 45 days were important to us. Let me remind the Senate that 61 Members of the Senate voted for 180 days yesterday—180 days. We have come down from 180 days to 60 days. Prior to yesterday, the President had offered 45 days. He has not moved an inch from that 45 days since yesterday's vote — not an inch. We have come down 120 days, if we want to look at who is giving and who is taking.
On the section (g) authority, I do not recall that the President ever discussed the question of section (g) authority and its usefulness to him in any extension, whether it is 45, 60, or 180 days.
In a discussion this afternoon with Republican leaders, we were not impressed that they thought this was important authority for the President to retain. Suddenly, in the course of the discussion here, from the time the Mansfield proposal was presented to the Senate, section (g) authority has acquired greater and greater significance and importance for the administration.
Well, as one of those cautious New Englanders, I become suspicious as this emerging importance becomes clearer and clearer.
It is clear that the President wants to use it, but if he intends to use it at the first opportunity that is given to him, then on our side, we want to be sure that we have enough time before that point is reached to develop our alternatives. That is it, pure and simple.
Mr. JACKSON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. The October 20 date, given the already agreed-to October recess, means that we would have to have our alternative ready on October 10. That is what the minority is presenting to us. We cannot get started on this until next week. So the 45 days suddenly gets squeezed down to something less than that for a good-faith, uninterrupted congressional consideration of an alternative policy.
What the President is trying to create through this counteroffer is pressure upon Congress, not to develop a congressional alternative, but to knuckle under to the President's plan. If that is what it amounts to, then I say to the minority, "You had your victory yesterday. The veto was sustained. You have gotten what the President asked for last February — total decontrol. You do not have any section (g) (2) authority today. The President vetoed that yesterday and you sustained. Now you are asking us to give it back to him on his terms so that he can use it."
Obviously, it has become of such importance that we have to conclude that he intends to use it.
When? On October 20, the last day of the congressional recess, all before we have had an opportunity to develop our alternative. That is no alternative whatsoever.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Washington.
Mr. JACKSON. I think the Senator has made the real point and that is that the time that we seek here is to be able to develop a congressional policy. All of this will be for naught if while we are completing it the President comes in with another program, another policy, which Congress will then have to wrestle with in the midst of our own legislative effort. Certainly that is inconsistent with the whole concept of a period of time here for the House and the Senate to work its will in cooperation with the White House. They will be testifying, they will be submitting their proposals. But what it boils down to is that if they do not like the way it is going, then all of a sudden in the midst of the legislative process we are confronted with another program, and that just does not make any sense.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the able Senator from Maine. Mr. MUSKIE. May I say, finally, we have indicated our willingness not to insist on the section (g) (2) language in the Mansfield proposal and to take the administration's word, and I still stand ready to do that.
But what do we get in return, you know, from the administration? I mean a proposal the very assumption of which is that they cannot trust us. Well, maybe they honestly feel they cannot. If that is the attitude, then what about the climate of accommodation we are trying tocreate? What about the climate of accommodation? I mean, if we are asked, you know, to accept the good faith of the administration I do not think it is too much to ask in return acceptance of our good faith that we want a constructive, adequate, not excessive, period in which to develop alternatives, including the administration's — including the administration's—so that when we come to the end of that period Congress can work its will.
But if the effort instead is to put us into the pressure of another situation where the alternative is the President's policy or nothing I, for one, you know, will not agree.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I have been participating in these discussions on and off the floor in conversations with the President and his staff for the last several hours, as I participated in our discussions in the last 2 weeks in July in an effort to resolve the problem at that time.
I speak only for the Senator from Tannessee, but I would have to say I have absolute confidence in the integrity of the Senator from Maine in his desire to work something out, in his willingness to bend every effort to achieve that result.
But, having said that, I think I have got to point out that while I have total faith in the Senator, I have to remember what has been happening for the last several months. In the last several months I have seen the President of the United States offer this Congress more plans than I can count now, more alternatives. I have seen him offer a 30-month decontrol — that was unacceptable. I saw him talk about 36 — that was unacceptable. I saw him talk about 39 — that is unacceptable. Then I saw him say, "Well,I will not put on the second dollar because you have asked for more time," and that was unacceptable.
We went through a 60-day extension from January, and then we added 60 more days in March and 60 more days in May. We got into July, we worked the last 2 weeks intensively to try to work it out. We were within a gnat's eyelash of an agreement, but we were unable to achieve it. And here we are.
We are asked again for more delay. I do trust the Senator from Maine; I trust him implicitly. I trust his sincerity and his ability. But I am beginning to wonder whether or not Congress will exercise the fortitude that is necessary to come up with a plan.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROCK. And I think it does require a certain timetable or pressure, if you will, in order to force that action.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield Mr. President?
Mr. BROCK. Sure.
Mr. MUSKIE. What is the Senator's comment on my point that the President now has, without further action by Congress, the policy he asked for in February, decontrol of old oil? Why does the Senator belabor us, you know, to save him from the consequences of that policy? I mean, he has got it. He does not have to accept a moment's more delay from Congress. He has got what he asked for. Is that not good enough for him? He has asked for a congressional alternative. The Senator has been reciting the record that we have not given him one. So not having a congressional alternative, he has got the one he presented. So why is he not satisfied? Why does he not take it and go to the country and say, "I won over the Congress. I have got my plan. We have got decontrol and now the problem is solved."
Mr. BROCK. I would say to the Senator I would hope he never tries to hold me to something that I proposed a long time ago about which I may have changed my mind.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, the Senator is trying to do that to us.
Mr. BROCK. No, no.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. BROCK. I will not try to do it to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Incidentally, has not thePresident changed his mind about his original proposal?
Mr. BROCK. I think he has.
Mr. MUSKIE. And he said so.
Mr. BROCK. I think he has made it clear when he proposed a gradual decontrol over 39 months.
Mr. MUSKIE He said that was in his compromise with us. He never told us because he changed his mind about the wisdom of his own proposal. There is a difference between the two.
Mr. BROCK. I am not in the business of mind-reading, but I do know that that office, the Presidency, has made the most incredible series of gestures to work out a compromise with this Congress that I have seen in years in this body.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator saying that the President no longer believes in the policy that he has not denounced?
Mr. BROCK. I think all of us feel that ultimately decontrol is going to have to come. But we do think it is going to take an amount of time to achieve it rationally, and if the President supports that why challenge his position?
Mr. MUSKIE. Because he is constantly challenging our position. Why should we not challenge his?
Mr. BROCK. Well, the Senator has no position, Senator. I have not seen anything.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will say this—
Mr. BROCK. In writing what is the position?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will tell the Senator this: If the President has backed off from his February position, then he has come around to the congressional position that decontrol was wrong. So do not tell me—
Mr. BROCK, Why then does not the Congress accept that?
Mr. MUSKIE. We were defeated in Congress. He won. He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory yesterday.
Mr. BROCK. If the President adopted the Senator's own position, we would reject that tomorrow, too. I cannot believe we are rejecting this last offer again. In an effort to compromise he has bent over backwards.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not acknowledge that characterization, Senator.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield?
Mr. BROCK. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. It seems to me that, to the Senator from Wyoming that, a very proper and appropriate response to the question raised by the Senator from Maine when he says is not the offer the President made in February now acceptable to him, is to ask the Senator from Maine who, along with a number of otherDemocrats, was making great boasts about in 30 days they would have an energy policy all drafted, they would have it all finished, and here it is
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator saying that I said that? When did I say that?
Mr. HANSEN. I thought every Presidential candidate aspirant on that side had said it. Maybe the Senator from Maine did not; maybe he did not.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator aware that I am not a Presidential aspirant?
Mr. HANSEN. Then I do not include the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wanted that point clear in the RECORD.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me make the point
Mr. BROCK. Is that a permanent guarantee? [Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. And it is a point that if we had assurances from that side on how quickly an energy policy would be written, we have had hundreds of them. We were told in January that 30 days would be enough; and then the only person who has made any effort at all to come forth with a comprehensive, constructive energy policy has been the President of the United States.
The Senator from Rhode Island spoke about the only concern here was price and, of course, there are those who think that it is not really quite that simple. So I say to my good friend from Tennessee, in expressing my appreciation to him, I think the question is to be turned around the other way. If the boasts that were begun early in January had any validity to them at all, if we are to place any credence at all in the assurances that we are going to have a policy written in 45 days now, I simply have to say, boy, we have heard that record over and over and over again and, so far, they have not produced more than a small mouse.
Mr. BROCK. Of course, the Senator is right.
Mr. HANSEN. The Senator from Tennessee has the floor.
Mr. BROCK. Why should we believe something will happen in 45 days when it has not happened in 10 months?
I tell the Senator that I accept his pledge. I accept his commitment and I believe him, but I do not understand why, then, he cannot accept this offer from the President. I do not know how many compromises we have to offer.
Mr. MUSKIE. If we had been as efficient as the Senator from Wyoming, as we should have been
Mr. HANSEN. The press releases, that is all.
Mr. MUSKIE. I issued none, but if we had been that efficient and pursued a policy in 30 days, the President would not have had all this time during which he has been persuaded his February policy was wrong, so we did him a service by not acting as expeditiously as the—
Mr. BROCK. Now, we are getting to the point where we are doing great favors for the President of the United States and killing the American people, becausewe have no policy at all, and that is what I think is intolerable.
I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator yield the floor?
Mr. BROCK. Yes, of course.