September 11, 1975
Page 28710
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to make the point that one event that created an uncertainty beyond all other uncertainties was the President's veto. When he vetoed the bill, that gave him no assurance that the House or the Senate — both or either — would agree to an extension for 45 days or 60 days or 30 days or any period of time, nor that they would act on it.
Nothing was said yesterday, when the Senator from Arizona voted to support the President's veto, that next Wednesday we would begin a period of 45 days for consideration. The Senator did not ask for that assurance yesterday, but he is asking for it today.
Mr. FANNIN. May I answer that?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish my question?
He is asking for it today. Why is it so important today, if it was not important yesterday? That is the question I would like to put to the Senator.
I do not think that if the leadership on both sides, with the support of the administration, agree to the majority leader's proposal, the House would fail early on Wednesday, or whatever day it comes in next week, to acquiesce.
I have had indications from the House side that many of the leaders there consider the majority leader's proposal superior because it takes into account considerations that had not been taken into account. That may not unanimously be the case over there, but certainly some Members at the leadership level are beginning to think that perhaps the majority leader's proposal is the better one.
So I really do not see this great uncertainty about what will happen next Wednesday if the proposal is adopted by the Senate.
Mr. FANNIN. The distinguished Senator from Maine has a different reading from the one I have from the House.
Mr. MUSKIE. We read different sides.
Mr. FANNIN. We talk to different people.
Evidently, they felt satisfied that the Senate would accept their proposal, the measure they passed, or they would not have gone home. I think they would have had some concern about it. There certainly is communication back and forth. If there had been real concern about whether or not the Senate would be willing to accept their measure, I think they still would have been in session and considered it important to go ahead with this legislation. They did it and recessed and knew they would be in recess until Wednesday.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FANNIN. I will yield when I have concluded.
I believe we should consider the action that was taken by the House certainly, the indication from the House as to why that action was taken. This is a very important factor involved in what we discussed.
I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Will the Senator agree that whether either proposal is accepted, whichever one is accepted, both are retroactive? So, as to the argument that we do not know what this House is going to do, if we accept the House version on Wednesday or Thursday, it is retroactive to midnight of August 31, and both proposals are retroactive. So we will not lose anything in the protection of the people in accepting this substitute proposal tonight.
Mr. FANNIN. Can the Senator from Kentucky assure me that if we pass the distinguished majority leader's proposal, the House will accept it?
Mr. FORD. No. But the point I am trying to make to the Senator is that if the House does not accept our proposal and we, in turn, accept the House proposal, it still is retroactive, so we have not lost a thing.
Mr. FANNIN. I have never had anybody in the Senate Chamber tell me that if the House will not accept it on Wednesday, we will accept the House proposal on Wednesday.
Mr. FORD. I am not predicting what will happen; but both proposals have a retroactive paragraph that goes back to midnight of August 31. So whatever we do, whatever conclusion is arrived at, it will be retroactive.
Mr. FANNIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I understand his reasoning.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I should like to make a unanimous-consent request — because we have been unable to get in touch with the President of the United States — that if the President should send up a proposal under 4(g) (2), we agree tonight to vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENSON. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, may I note that the objection came from the Democratic side?
Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator cannot tell the difference at this time— [Laughter.]
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, is it fair to inquire who objected?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from Illinois objected.
Mr. HANSEN. Which Senator from Illinois? There are two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There apparently is only one Senator from Illinois in the Chamber at the moment.
Mr. HANSEN. Is that the junior Senator from Illinois?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the junior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. HANSEN. I should like to note that the objection came from the Democratic side, Mr. President, and I say that because I am very sincere in thinking that we want to try to reach a compromise.
I can appreciate the dilemma in which some people find themselves in being able to agree. The distinguished minority whip tried to reach the President. He was unable to reach the President, and that was the next best thing we could do.
The argument that has been made over this approach is that we could not get a vote. I am persuaded to believe that there is not one Republican present in the Chamber now who objects to that. If that is the argument, if the argument is being made that this procedure is no good because the Senate cannot vote in 5 days, then I think it is important to note where the objection came from, and that is my purpose in asking the Chair who did object.
I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr.. FANNIN. Mr. President, reaching a compromise seems to be very difficult. I understood from the distinguished Sentaor from Maine that that was one of the concerns, one of the very serious concerns, that they would not be able to get a vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may clarify that, we had two concerns.
Incidentally, may I begin my discussion of this matter by reminding the Senator of something I said earlier in connection with the meeting which a few of us had in the majority leader's office earlier today. It was said then, all around, that it was inconceivable that if we could agree on a time for Congress to consider energy policy, the President would use 4(g) authority. If that is the case, I really find it hard to understand what the argument is all about. If we assume that he will not, then what is wrong with including it in the legislation to make it clear? I make that point.
Second, if the President uses 4(g) authority, I am concerned not only whether or not under the Senate rules it would be possible for the Senate actually to work its will in 5 days, but I am also concerned about the disruptive effect of that kind of initiative on the part of the President in the period when all concerned are to be focusing on reaching accommodation on energy policy.
I think that can be as disruptive of a constructive environment of accommodations as anything the President could do. I cannot believe that the President, given the mood of accommodation which he has tried to express, would not agree with me on that point. I just cannot believe it.
In connection with the remarks that the Senator from Arizona was making earlier about the House, the House acted without asking whether the Senate would agree to its proposal. The House acted without considering the Senate's proposal.
Mr. FANNIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, not until I finish.
Mr. FANNIN. This conversation was going back and forth all the time. I do not agree with the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was not engaged in these conversations, nor was the majority leader on these questions.
This proposal before the Senate today—
Mr. FANNIN. I know it was the majority leader. I understand that the majority leader was talking to the Speaker.
Mr. MANSFIELD. No, he was not.
Mr. FANNIN. It must have been on another subject.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Senator that this proposal presented to us today was presented by me this afternoon to the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If the Senator will yield, after the House had passed its bill.
Mr. MUSKIE After the House had acted. There was no opportunity for the Senate to present its proposal.
Mr. FANNIN. This proposal was discussed with the Senator from Arizona this morning by one of the members of my party from the House, and I would say it was certainly under consideration all day long.
Mr. MANSFIELD. If the Senator will yield, I was surprised that the House had acted so quickly. I got no word until we started our discussion in the Democratic conference this afternoon. There were no conversations between me and any Member of the House on either side. Therefore, that was the reason—
Mr. FANNIN. On this subject?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Or on any other subject this morning. I talked to the Speaker this afternoon, about 3 o'clock, while we were meeting — as a matter of fact, in my office. That was the first time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suggest to the Senator from Arizona that he would not permit me to represent the Republican minority on this side in discussions with the Republican minority on the House side on matters of substance. If, in fact, the Senator discussed with his Republican counterparts on the House side a proposal resembling this one, he may or may not have presented it more persuasively than I might have to our side in the House. In any case, I think a negotiation has to go from the majority to the majority before we get the view of the majority of the other side on it.
Mr. FANNIN. That is certainly agreed upon. I certainly understand it that way. I will say that this was not passed without considerable discussion. I know that it was being discussed early this morning; I am not saying discussed with the Senate or with the majority leader or with the leadership, but I know there was considerable discussion because it was brought to my attention.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FANNIN. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is my understanding, secondhand, that the matter was brought up under unanimous consent and just passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Without debate.
Mr. FANNIN. As I say, it had been discussed about 2 hours before. I considered it was long before that. Nevertheless, I do not think that is an important matter that is involved.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator, we considered in our informal discussions, before we adopted a policy, the 45-day thing.
Mr. FANNIN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. We did and we rejected it. We rejected it and adopted this one instead.
The fact that we considered the 45-day thing does not mean that we rejected it as a House initiative at that point. We rejected it as one of several ideas for our consideration. It did not occur to us that the only idea we could consider is one adopted by the House. I have not observed that that was the Senator's habit, either.
The Senator does not automatically rubber-stamp House proposals.
Mr. FANNIN. It was referred to as a 50-day proposal. I think the Senator understands that.
Mr. MUSKIE. It was not referred to.
Mr. FANNIN. That was referred to as a 50-day proposal, counting today as oneof the days.
Figuring out that 10 days have passed, this was the 11th day, so it was figured as a 50-day proposal. Why argue about that length of time?
I realize that there are many reasons why we should go forward and do something tonight. I certainly do not like to be responsible for holding back or holding the Senate from voting on a measure that they have under consideration. But I do feel that when we are taking that action, we are working against the best interests of the American people.
I certainly realize the sincerity of the majority leader in offering this proposal, and the caucus certainly had the right to work out this particular proposal, the Senator from Maine was within his rights, so we are not questioning that. I am just questioning the benefits that would accrue by having something done immediately. I think that that is the whole issue at hand.
Yes, we have not had a report back from the President and there have been a lot of assumptions.
The Senator from Arizona assumes that the President is very anxious to get a program through. He has so stated. He has cooperated, I think, in every way possible. He talked about 30 days and he wanted to hold it to 30 days. He said, yes, I will go 45 days. Then, of course, we go past the 45 days when he was talking about the 30 days. I do not think he had in mind going 30 days in 10, but now we are talking about going 60 days.
If we are just arguing over 10 days, I agree that that is not very much to argue over, but I am very concerned as to what is going to happen if we do not pass this legislation tonight. It goes back over to the House. The House Members have gone home. We do not know what is going to take place as far as their feelings when they come back. I am vitally concerned that if this does go over, there may be entirely different feeling in the House when they consider it again. That is the reason that I feel we should act tonight on this legislation and end the arguments that we have. I think that certainly, we are close enough together that the differences would not affect — I do not feel they would — the final outcome of the legislation that will be adopted by Congress.
If we have the 50 days in which to write that legislation or we have 60 days, I think it is not going to make a great deal of difference. I know that the Senator from Maine, because of the schedule of the Committee on the Budget, will be involved, and of course, the House will be involved, too, in their particular activities in that regard. They will be coming up at a certain time. That is all the more reason why we should work to get this out of the way. I think we will.
I know that we can schedule even a nighttime schedule, if necessary, to get this out of the way. There is not any doubt in my mind that if we want to go forward with legislation, we will not have a barrier if we accept the dates that are in this particular proposal that was passed by the House.
I hope, Mr. President, that we will reconsider the substitute and that it will be voted down and that then, we can go ahead and adopt this and have the legislation sent to the President and we will end the worry that I know exists as to what is going to be done.