September 11, 1975
Page 28707
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as we approach this vote, it seems to me that the important question is not what is good for the Senate, not whether we should agree with the House not whether or not we agree with the President, but what is good for this country.
I think the important fact that we must a face today is that it is important that we continue for a limited period the control of oil prices.
It was I who proposed about 4 weeks ago to Frank Zarb in a telephone call that we seek to avoid a confrontation with those who wanted to continue the 6 months control and I urged at that time that there be a 30-day extension.
Unfortunately, we were not able to avoid that confrontation, and yesterday the veto was sustained.
I think the problem we face today is what can we do in the Nation's best interests. It seems clear to me that we have only one course of action and that is to vote favorably on the House legislation which extends controls for 60 days.
Something has been said about the willingness to compromise and to make accommodations. I believe that there are a number of people on both sides who have been seeking this.
I would like to point out that as far as I am concerned I was willing to compromise, even though I was in a parliamentary position where I could have brought up my own bill to extend controls. I preferred to see us consider the House legislation so that we could take final action today.
I would like to point out to those on the other side that there were a number of meetings today with representatives of the Democratic leadership, as well as a number on our side.
There are a number of us who were willing to agree either to a sense of the Senate resolution or we would seek to get some kind of approval from the President that he would not propose a decontrol program during the first 45 days of the extension. If they would agree to that and also agree to the House version, it seemed to me we were all getting pretty much what we wanted.
To me, it is a little foolish to argue about 15 more days. We started with 30, we have gone up to 45, the House went to 60, and now someone will add another15. The only way we can get final action today is to take the House version.
What I would like to suggest is there are some of us on this side who would be willing to try to get some kind of assurance, either from the White House, or, if preferred, some kind of a sense of the Senate resolution, that no Presidential proposal on decontrol should be made during the first 45 days. It seems to me if we can approach it in this direction we might well be able to remove the first problem in developing a national energy program.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for one brief comment?
Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. NUNN. I believe I understood what the Senator was saying. He is saying we are arguing about a few days and about whether the President is going to send up a so-called program under section 4 (g) or the section which relates to having 5 days by either body to veto. It seems to me what the Senator proposed would be a very reasonable situation, if we can just get some assurance that during the first 45 days of the 60-day period under the House bill the President would not send up a provision under the veto section. That does not mean he would not send up a program. He could send up all the programs that he would want to. I would think everybody would want that. But under the veto section he would not send up anything in the first 45 days. If that were the assurance, I think it would be a reasonable proposal and I would support the House bill on that basis.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I think that is a way out of the impasse with the Democratic majority getting essentially what they want. More important, I think it would enable us to adopt the House version, which means that it could become law immediately, or at least it could be sent to the President immediately. He has already indicated that he would sign the House version. It would take no conference. I think this is the direction we ought to move.
Mr. BROCK. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. BROCK. I have been intrigued by this conversation. I think it does make sense. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the Senator from Georgia. I wonder if I might have the privilege of asking the Senator from Maine, who authored this particular resolution, if it is a matter of confidence in the Presidentor if it is a matter of the 15 days, or is it something where he has to have both? What I am wondering is if there is some area of compromise where we might work it out with an assurance from the President.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, let me make it clear with respect to the confidence of the President we just do not know what the President's intentions are with respect to 4(g). We want to make sure, and the resolution was our way of making sure, that we have that time, unobstructed by the kind of intervention that 4(g) holds out. This was discussed in the meeting in the majority leader's office, this possibility of getting the President's assurance in lieu of legislative language.
I could not speak for all my colleagues, but if the President gives us that assurance, so far as I am concerned that assurance is as good as writing it into law. But that suggestion was not pursued then. The President was said to be unavailable. In any case there were other objections on the Republican side. At that point it seemed fruitless to pursue a compromise. That is where it washed out.
On the time thing, I repeat this time question is not a frivolous question.
Mr. BROCK. I understand that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Fifteen days at the end of a legislative session is a critical amount of time, as we all know. I cannot believe that if the President were made available to consider the 4(g) question he would be insensitive to the considerations that prompted us to seek 60 days. I would urge that if the President's ear could be obtained for the purpose of considering the first question, he also be asked to consider the second.
Mr. ROTH. I would just like to comment that we not only have the President involved in this, but, of course, we also have the House. This would necessarily delay things until they returned, and that is next Wednesday. It would seem to me that we would very easily be spending the next 10 to 15 days just trying to take this first step. I think we would be better off acting now on the time problem. I do not think 15 days really will make that much difference.
I appreciate and fully support what the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is trying to do and what he is faced with. But I think a more important question is what a further delay would mean to the country. We must bring some certainty into this whole energy picture. This seems to me a reasonable compromise if we can bring it about.The House feels that they can act effectively within 60 days. It was adopted unanimously.
I recognize we can make arguments for 15 days. I originally wanted 30 days. Now I am arguing for 60. But somewhere we have to compromise. It seems to me that we have a very logical compromise here.
I think the press has shown that they want us to act. I would like to again point out to the Senate that the New York Times yesterday said:
The 45-day truce represents yet another test of their sincerity.
Here we are now at 60 days, and people are talking about 75. Editorial after editorial calls for action. The Los Angeles Times said:
The President has met Congress half way. We urge the same spirit of pragmatic compromise on Members of the House and Senate.
The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin said on August 28:
If Federal price controls end and oil prices start rising as a result, Congress will be more to blame than President Ford.
What I urge is that we face this in the spirit of compromise and see if we cannot resolve this impasse tonight and then move on next week with the more serious problem of developing a national energy program.