ECONOMY, BUSINESS, FISHERIES
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Magnuson Fisheries Management and Conservation Act: bill (S. 961) to enact, 121-123, 125, 126, 1181,1296, 1297,1299, 1301-1303
Letter: 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction, O. William Moody, 123
Magnuson Fisheries Management and Conservation Act: amend bill (S. 961) to enact, 1301
Letter: Cranston-Gravel amendment to the Magnuson Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, by, 1186
121-123; January 19, 1976; Muskie makes a statement on S. 961, the Magnuson Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, a bill to create a 200-mile coastal administrative zone for the protection and conservation of U.S. fisheries. This measure was first passed by the Senate in 1974, but when the House failed to act on it, was reintroduced in 1975. Despite a substantial degree of opposition, the Senate had finally agreed to begin the full debate on the measure in the opening days of the second session of the Congress. Muskie made the argument that the bill had been modified to permit the Law of the Sea Conference meeting in March to conclude before it took effect, and concluded that this change, allied to passage of the measure, would constitute the most substantial incentive for the Conference nations to act.
125, 126; January 19, 1976; Muskie’s argument for action on S. 961, the bill to create a 200-mile fisheries administrative zone is contested by Senator Gravel (D-Alaska), who argues that if the U.S. acts unilaterally, other nations will do likewise. At this period, there was a substantial body of opinion in the Congress that it was a unique U.S. responsibility to sustain international agreements and to lead by example.
1181; January 27, 1976; Muskie argues that the proposed Cranston (D-California) amendment is nothing but an effort to indirectly kill the 200-mile fisheries bill, because it would incorporate a 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, a multilateral convention which was never ratified by the Soviet Union, Japan, Poland or most of the other distance fishing nations, and which would require enactment of legislation to implement.
1186; January 27, 1976; As debate on S. 961, the 200-mile fisheries administrative zone bill is debated, segments of a letter signed by several Senators, including Muskie, are read in favor of one or another argument, until Senator Stevens (R-Alaska) asks that the entire text of the letter be read into the Record.
1296, 1297, 1299; January 28, 1976; Debate on S. 961, the 200-mile fisheries zone bill, draws to a close and Muskie announces that he will offer an amendment to the Cranston amendment to delete everything after that amendment’s findings, which will be, in effect, an up and down vote on the bill itself.
1301-1303; January 28, 1976; As the debate closes, Senator Cranston moves to table the Muskie amendment to his amendment, a motion which fails, and the Muskie amendment is subsequently approved on a 58 to 37 vote.
Congressional Office of Regulatory Policy Oversight Act of 1975: enact (see S. 2878), 1104
1104; January 27, 1976; Muskie is shown as a principal cosponsor of S. 2878, a Javits (R-New York) bill to create an Office of Regulatory Policy Oversight, a bill that would have set up an independent office, answerable to the Congress, to review agency regulations and the entire process of promulgating regulations, along with a process for Congress to formally reject a proposed regulation within a specific period of time. Senator Javits suggested this bill was analogous to the Congressional budget law, which reformed a piecemeal series of practices into a single coherent process.
Congressional Office of Regulatory Policy Oversight Act of 1975: introduction, 1110
1110; January 27, 1976; Muskie makes a brief comment on S. 2878, the Javits (R-New York) bill to create an Office of Regulatory Policy Oversight, explaining his support for greater legislative involvement in the regulatory process. The efforts to increase Congressional review of specific regulations continued to be popular in Congress, until in 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in INS v. Chadka that this constituted a legislative veto, a constitutionally prohibited action.
Milk: resolution (S.J. Res 121) to adjust quarterly price support, veto message, 2284, 2287
Table: Estimates of alternative milk price support programs, Congressional Budget Office, 2285
2284- 2287; February 4, 1976; Muskie makes a comment on S. J. Res. 121, the milk price support resolution and indicates he will vote to uphold the President’s veto of the measure, because its cost is well above the budget resolution’s limits on agricultural spending, a claim denied by Senator Humphrey (D- Minnesota) at some length.
Maritime Education and Training Act of 1976: enact (see S. 3002), 3732
3732; February 19, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of S. 3002, a Hathaway (D- Maine) bill which would amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Maritime Academy Act of 1958 to provide for an integrated system of education and training for officers for the U.S. Merchant Marine, in part to strengthen the system of Merchant Marine Academies, and in part to raise the annual student stipend from $600, which had remained unchanged since 1958, to $1200.
Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Programs: expression of appreciation (see S. Con. Res. 100), 5989
5989; March 10, 1976; Muskie is shown as one of several senators who introduce Senate Concurrent Resolution 100, a resolution to thank various scientific and engineering societies for the Congressional fellowship programs they sponsor, in particular the American Association for the Advancement of Science, whose first Congressional fellowship program was inaugurated in 1974.
Down HOME Farming — Hope for the Future, 6048
HOME and cooperative rural assistance in Maine, 6048
Self-Help in Maine, 6048
6048; March 10, 1976; Muskie briefly describes an agricultural cooperative in Maine which began as a way for home craft workers to directly profit from sales of their products, and grew to encompass education, social services and a farming program focused on helping the rural poor.
Magnuson Fisheries Management and Conservation Act: bill (S. 961) to enact, conference report, 8386
8386; March 29, 1976; Muskie speaks briefly about the successful completion of Congressional action on S. 961, the bill to create a 200 mile coastal fisheries administrative zone, a proposal he had supported for a number of years.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Bill (H.R.12453) to make appropriations, 9064
9064; April 1, 1976; This index citation is an error; H.R. 12453, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration bill debate is printed at pages 9060-9064, but Muskie took no part in it and was not cited by any of the participants.
Letter: Importance of agricultural research, Edward H. Piper, 10498
10498; April 12, 1976; During debate on the first concurrent budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 109, Muskie inserts a letter from the University of Maine in Orono which describes the importance of agriculture and forestry research for Maine and the northeast, and makes the point that the budget committee is not attempting to either cut specific programs or dictate the legislative direction within the functional category of agriculture.
Committee on Small Business (Select): provide certain legislative authority (see S. Res. 104), 11806
11806; April 29, 1976; During debate on S. Res. 104, a resolution to extend limited legislative jurisdiction to the Select Committee on Small Business, Senator Hathaway (D- Maine) asks that an error in the printing of the resolution be corrected, so that certain Senators, including Muskie would be shown as cosponsors. The grant of legislative jurisdiction to a Special or Select Committee is generally a controversial proposal, because those Senators whose committees stand to lose jurisdiction are usually unwilling to agree. A concept like "small business" is particularly slippery, because it is potentially applicable to an extremely broad range of activities, from farming to manufacturing. In this instance, the proposal was that the Select Committee gain legislative jurisdiction only over the Small Business Administration and its programs, not over the actual substance of such matters as taxes or trade.
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act: amend (see S. 3375), 12384
12384; May 4, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of S. 3375, a Hathaway (D- Maine) bill to amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act to protect potato growers against reprisals from dealers licensed under the Act if they complain of nonpayment for potato deliveries. One of the provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act provides for prompt payment, but in Maine, a number of farmers complaining of slow or partial payments had been threatened by dealers with boycotts. The bill would have permitted for complaints to be made anonymously.
Maritime programs: bill (H.R. 11481) to authorize appropriations, 18297, 18304, 18305
Letter: Cadet subsistence allowance at state maritime academics, by, 18304
Report: Principal Institutions in the U.S. Which Train Individuals for Initial Licensing As Merchant Marine Officers, Ad Hoc Committee on Maritime Education and Training, 18297-18304
18297- 18304; June 15, 1976; During debate on H.R. 11481, a bill to authorize appropriations for maritime programs, Muskie joins in a discussion of a Hathaway (D- Maine) amendment to raise the annual stipend for students at State institutions such as the Maine Maritime Academy from $600 to $1200 per year, even though there is some argument that maritime officers are in oversupply.
Agriculture and related agencies: bill (H.R. l4237) making appropriations, 19876-19878
Report: Allocation of Budget Totals to Subcommittees, Committee on Appropriations (excerpt), 19876
19876-19878; June 23, 1976; Muskie speaks about the relationship between H.R. 14237, the Agriculture Department appropriations bill and the budget guidelines Congress has adopted, and explains in some detail how the allocation of funds among different budget functions is being tracked and guided by the broader budget outline, and discusses some of the implications of the funding in the bill with the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.
Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government: bill (H.R. 14261) making appropriations, 20182, 20183
Table: Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government appropriation bill, 20183
20182, 20183; June 24, 1976; Muskie comments on H.R. 14261, the Treasury and Postal Service appropriations bill, noting that a half billion dollars for the postal deficit has not been included in the budget targets but has, in the interim, been approved by a House Committee. One of the continuing problems facing the budget process was the time lag between establishing the budget targets and enacting subsequent legislation. In this instance, the House Budget Committee had refused to make allowance for any funding of the postal deficit in the budget targets but nonetheless, the House was in the process of deciding to spend half a billion dollars for that purpose.
Department of Transportation and related agencies: bill (H.R. 14234) making appropriations, 22063
22063 (Actually begins 22062); July 1, 1976; Muskie notes that the Transportation Department appropriations bill falls well within the budget guidelines, and notes, in addition, that a ceiling on obligations from the two transportation trust funds (highways and airports) will help prevent sudden large spending surges from year to year and thus give the Appropriations Committee more control over the spending authorized by the highway and airport programs.
Maine potatoes: Commodity Futures Trading Commission hearing, 24280
Commodity Futures Trading Commission: hearing to change the futures contract for Maine potatoes, 24280
Proposed Change in Futures Contract for Maine Potatoes, Commodity Futures Trading Commission hearings, Presque Isle, Maine, by, 24281
24280, 24281; July 28, 1976; Muskie provides his testimony before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, at a hearing held in Maine on the question of potato futures contracts. In May, 1976, a massive default on deliveries of 50 million pounds of potatoes on Maine potato contracts, the largest such default in the country’s history at the time, had resulted in Maine growers being owed $2 million as a result of price manipulation in the futures markets, in particular, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).
Traders on NYMEX, a commodity futures exchange, reacted to a series of Agriculture Department estimates of the 1976 Maine potato crop, which foresaw a smaller crop, by purchasing May 1976 delivery contracts for Maine potatoes, in the expectation that a smaller crop would produce higher prices.
A group primarily consisting of large potato processors determined to counteract the expected price increase by accumulating as many "short" contracts for May delivery as possible, without purchasing proportionately offsetting "long" contracts above a certain minimum price. "Short" contracts are bets that the sales price of a commodity will be lower than the current market price; "long" contracts are opposing bets.
By the time trading in this contract had ended, May 7, 1976, the "short" sellers had accumulated 1900 contracts, far in excess of the net 150 contracts permitted under law, and were forced to default on almost 1000 of them.
At the same time, a group of "long" traders, aware of the actions of the processors, accumulated an excessively large number of contracts — over 911 when trading ceased — and also created an artificial shortage of railcars during May, 1976, preventing the owners of warehoused potatoes from making deliveries to fulfil the "short" contracts.
As a result, Maine growers faced huge losses, and again began to agitate to end the commodity futures market in Maine potatoes. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, established in 1974 and beginning work in May 1975, was established in large part to oversee the futures exchanges and to limit the price manipulations to which these markets were particularly susceptible.
Commercial fisheries industry: provide for incentive loans (see S. 3624), 25267
25267; August 3, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of S. 3624, a Hathaway bill to provide for incentive loans to the commercial fishery industry. The bill was based on a series of Small Business Administration hearings in Maine, Alaska and Florida, which found that the Fisheries Loan Fund was inadequate to the challenges facing U.S. commercial fisheries, particularly since the 1973 moratorium on loans had effectively dried up funding for the fleet and shore facilities. The bill modified the terms of the Fisheries Loan Fund, to provide loans for the purpose of developing under-utilized fisheries and the shore facilities needed to process and market them.
Department of Transportation and related agencies: bill (H.R. 14234) making appropriations, conference report, 25565
25565; August 4, 1976; Muskie notes that the conference report on H.R. 14234, the Department of Transportation appropriations bill includes a $7.2 billion limit on the amount of funding that can be obligated from the highway trust fund, a position the Senate adopted but which was not in the House bill, and which he says will help in maintaining budget spending discipline.
Fairness in Franchising Act: enact (see S. 2335), 27300
27300; August 24, 1976; Muskie is added as a cosponsor to a Moss bill, S. 2335, the Fairness in Franchising Act. The purpose of the legislation was to establish some minimal federal rules for franchise operators in a field where imaginative and sometimes less-than-honest franchise operations had grown without much state supervision or oversight.
Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975: bill (H R. 8603) to enact, 27403, 27407
27403; August 24, 1976; Muskie gives his view on H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments, noting that although the Budget resolution as agreed to between the House and the Senate does not contain the funding needed for the bill, he and the Budget Committee will support raising some of the budget targets in the second resolution to accommodate the reform bill.
27407; August 24, 1975; Later in the debate on the Postal Reorganization Act, H.R. 8603, Muskie says he supports an approach that will allow Congress to consider which direction to take in reforming the Service, and notes that people in Maine, particularly in rural areas, are anxious that their post offices not be closed and that services be maintained.
Forest Management Act of 1976: bill (S. 3091 ) to enact, 27628, 27650
27628; August 25, 1976; Muskie says that Senator Randolph’s (D- West Virginia) views on clear cutting in national forests are similar to his own, and endorses a moderate approach to the issue, saying he may change his mind in the future.
27650; August 25, 1976; Muskie gives it as his opinion that an outright ban on clear cutting can not be supported at this particular time, and notes that amendments have led to a more moderate bill and that it would be best to maintain that posture until more is understood about the process. Muskie’s evident discomfort with this issue stemmed in large part from the fact that he was voting against an amendment offered by his Chairman, Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia), to emphasize selective cutting in Eastern hardwood forests over clearcutting. Maine’s forests are mostly privately owned, and in addition to considerations of climate and soil, are primarily softwoods, many managed as plantations, a situation that differs substantially from that prevailing in the national forests of West Virginia.
Minority Business Development Act, Senator Glenn, 34754
34754; October 1, 1976; Muskie announces that the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee which he chairs has cleared a bill for the full Government Operations Committee dealing with the development of minority-owned businesses, and notes that Senator Glenn (D- Ohio) played a major role in the development of the bill.
ENERGY
1976 2nd Congress, 94th Session
Energy Conservation and Insulation in Buildings Act of 1976: bill (H.R. 8650) to enact, 5805
Table: Natural resources, environment, and energy, 5805
5805; March 9, 1976; Muskie speaks in support of H.R. 8650, a bill that establishes a 3-year program of grants to the states for the purpose of insulating the homes of lower-income residents, and notes that he has sponsored a similar bill in the Senate.
Table: Projected costs of certain energy legislation, 18335
Federal Energy Administration Extension Act: bill (S. 2872) to enact, 18335-18338
18335; June 15, 1976; Muskie says that the pressures on the energy section of the federal budget mean that some energy programs will have to be funded at levels well below the authorized amounts in order to stay within budget ceilings during the debate on S. 2872, the Federal Energy Administration Extension Act, and goes on to have a debate with other Senators over the meaning of the numbers in the bill.
Energy Research and Development Administration: amend bill (S. 3105) to authorize appropriations, 19166, 20666
19166; June 18, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a McIntyre (D- New Hampshire) amendment No. 1888 to S. 3105, the Energy Research and Development Administration bill, to provide for a 50 percent set-aside in ERDA solar research and development funds for small business and a 20 percent set-aside for all other energy projects. At the time, ERDA was seen as the potentially largest energy-related entity the federal government would ever establish, and that the field of alternative energy research and development would be a continually growing one.
20666; June 25, 1976; When Senator McIntyre (D- New Hampshire) offers his amendment to S. 3105, the Energy Research and Development Administration authorization, Muskie’s name is among the list of cosponsors of that amendment. There is no Muskie text.
Energy Research and Development Administration: bill (S. 3105) to authorize appropriations, 20686, 20688
Report: Biomedical and Environmental Research Program, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (excerpt), 20688
Table: Pending energy legislation, 20686
20686; June 25, 1976; Muskie comments on the funding levels in S. 3105, the Energy Research and Development Administration bill, noting that the authorization for spending in the bill is quite a bit higher than the actual funds that are likely to be appropriated, and adds a comment on the inclusion of a federal uranium enrichment plant in the bill, versus a Ford Administration proposal that federal contracts be made with privately operated enrichment facilities.
20688; June 25, 1976; In a second statement, Muskie issues a warning that the Energy Research and Development Administration should not be looking at a foray into environmentally-related research as the opening wedge of an effort to alter environmental policy
Federal Energy Administration: conference to extend, 20804
20804; June 26, 1976; Muskie says that when the Senate conferees on the Federal Energy Administration bill, S. 2872, meet with their House counterparts they should preserve the energy conservation features in the bill, but drop the exemption from price controls of oil produced from stripper wells. At the time, energetic programs of construction-related energy conservation were seen by many as a "source" of new energy because of what were thought to be potentially huge reductions in energy use when homes and workplaces were properly insulated, and when the potential of solar energy panels came into wide use. At the same time, supporters of increased energy production were adamant that every encouragement must be extended to the holders of small stripper wells, and it was said that only the lure of uncontrolled prices with no ceiling would make such companies and persons take the trouble to pump the remaining recoverable oil from their fields.
ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline Authorization Act of 1976: enact (see S. 2950), 2740
2740; February 6, 1976; Muskie is shown as a primary sponsor of S. 2950, a Mondale (D - Minnesota) bill to authorize the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Canada from Alaska to help augment natural gas supplies in the midwest and east. This proposal was offered as an alternative to the process of turning natural gas into Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) for transport from Alaska, as a potential means of sharing with Canada the costs of a trans-Canada pipeline which would also be available for Canadian natural gas, and of reaching those markets in the U.S. least well served by natural gas.
Public Works Employment Act of 1975: bill (H.R.5247) to enact, veto message, 3865
3865; February 19, 1976; As the Senate debates President Ford’s veto of H.R. 5247, the Public Works Employment Act, Muskie makes the argument that the President’s estimated job figures are wrong, that the bill will return funds through taxes paid to the budget, and that the level of unemployment in the country and expected for the following several years is just too high to tolerate. President Ford exercised his veto power often during his years in office, and particularly as the presidential election campaign began to heat up and his own nomination by the Republican Party was thrown into some doubt.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act: extend (see S. 3037), 4330
4330; February 25, 1975; Notice only of Muskie’s introduction of S. 3037, a bill to extend for one year the authorization for waste water treatment construction grants in the Federal Water Pollution control Act.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act: legislation to extend, 4333
4333; February 25, 1976; Muskie makes a brief introductory statement on S. 3037, his bill to provide for a one-year extension of the authorization for waste water treatment construction funds, whose allocation to the states had been delayed by a Nixon-era impoundment of half the money, which was not released until after the 1974 Supreme Court ruling which found the impoundment illegal. Muskie explains that because of this delay, some states may run out of money when the existing authorization expires, and that his bill will keep these funds on track.
Letter: Maine's industrial and municipal pollution abatement, William R. Adams, Jr., 4376
4375, 4376; February 25, 1976; Muskie comments on Maine’s progress in cleaning up water pollution associated with the state’s paper industry, and notes that his concurrent service on the Commission for Water Quality and as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees clean water standards gives him a unique perspective on the problems and opportunities that present themselves in the water pollution control field.
Book Review :Fragile Structures: Oil Refineries, National Security, and the Coast of Maine, Newton W. Lamson, New York Times, 4387
4387; February 25, 1976; Muskie notes that a new book about the lengthy effort to establish a deepwater harbor for oil tankers and perhaps a refinery on the Maine coast has been published by one of Maine’s Public Utilities Commissioners, and shares a review of the book.
Clean Air Act of 1970 Amendments, University of Detroit Student Bar Association, Symposium on Environmental Law, by, 5139-5141
5139-5141; March 3, 1976; Senator Culver (D- Iowa) notes that the Senate will take up the Clean Air Act Amendments soon, and describes a Muskie speech about the process of writing this and other major environmental laws, given at the Detroit Students Bar Association’s symposium on Environmental Law.
Report: Committee on Public Works, 8336
Clean Air Act: amend (see S. 3219), 8336
8336; March 29, 1976; Muskie reports an original bill, S. 3219, to amend the clean air act, in Report No. 94-717 from the Public Works Committee. An original bill is one which is the product of Committee deliberations, rather than being the work of a single legislator.
Sulfates: alleged threat to public health, 10712
Public health: alleged threat of sulfates, 10712
Community Health Environmental Surveillance System Study, Russell E. Train; Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and Science and Technology, 10713
10712, 10713; April 13, 1976; Muskie says that misunderstanding of the purpose of the Community Health Environmental Surveillance System (CHESS) has led some industry groups to make the opportunistic claim that the CHESS studies have discredited the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate sulfates, a claim which is being echoed in some news stories as well. He says these attacks are well answered by the testimony of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Russell E. Train, which he provides.
Public Works Employment Act of 1976: amend bill (S.3201) to enact, 10717
Public Works Employment Act of 1976: bill (S. 3201 ) to enact, 10720-10727, 10731-10733
Memorandum: Differences between new countercyclical amendment and title II of H.R. 5247, 10724
10717-10720; April 13, 1976; Muskie offers his amendment to S. 3201, the Public Works Employment Act, arguing that although the Congress has included $4.5 billion to economic stimulus programs in its budget, it has so far enacted no legislation to actually authorize any stimulus programs, including public service employment programs. His amendment includes the countercyclical assistance for state and local governments which the Senate has been debating for almost two years and which has been adopted by the Congress and failed of enactment by only three votes following a presidential veto.
10721-10724; April 13, 1976; Muskie debates the merits of his amendment to S. 3201, the Public Works Employment Act, against claims that with the addition of the amendment the President will surely veto the bill, whereas without it, he probably will not. President Ford’s willingness to veto legislation, sometimes repeatedly vetoing the same bill, was used by the Republicans to help shape legislative outcomes when the number of actual votes they could muster did not constitute a majority.
10724-10725; April 13, 1976; Muskie explains in some detail how this version of his amendment has changed from the previous year’s and notes that it is mostly a function of gaining the political support needed to pass the amendment and then to override a potential veto. This explanation illustrates how programs which may have been calculated and written quite precisely become broader and more inclusive in an effort to attract more votes. It also explains how some bills become "Christmas trees" — they are amended to attract the number of votes needed to pass.
10726-10727; April 13, 1976; In response to a query from Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia) Muskie moves to modify his amendment to allow states where the state legislature has adjourned to have the Governor allocate the "balance of state" funding formula.
10730; April 13, 1976; Noting that the Muskie Amendment was adopted, Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia) says that although he is confident its addition will provoke a veto, as a conferee on the measure, he will fight for what the Senate passed. As Chairman of the Public Works Committee that reported the bill, he could normally have expected his opposition to an amendment to prevail.
10731-10733; April 13, 1976; Muskie makes a statement defending his amendment before the final vote and debates with Senator Baker (R-Tennessee) what role the concept of congressional budget priorities should play in subsequent legislation.
Text: S. J. Res. 190 to proclaim Clean Air Week, 11295
Clean Air Week: proclaim (see S. J. Res. 190), 11295
Clean Air Week: proclaim, 11295
11295; April 27, 1976; Muskie introduces S. J. Res. 190, a joint resolution requesting the President issue a proclamation designating the first week of May each year as Clean Air Week. He notes that Clean Air Week was first proclaimed in 1949, following the air pollution event at Donora, Pennsylvania. In 1948, between October 26 and October 31, 20 persons were asphyxiated and more than 7000 were hospitalized or became ill because of severe air pollution over a town of some 14,000 inhabitants. Although the intensity of the event was caused by climatic conditions over the narrow Monongahela River valley, the actual air pollution itself was attributed to local steel plants and a zinc smelting facility in the area.
Clean Air Act amendments, 11761-11763
Clean Air Act: nondegradation policies, 11761-11763
Letter: Clean Air Act amendments, Jay S. Hammond, 11765
Study: EPA Analysis of the Impact of the Senate Significant Deterioration Proposal, 11763-1765
11761-11767; April 29, 1976; Muskie explains that the concept of preserving clean air was central to the 1967 and 1970 clean air legislation, and that the Public Works Committee’s consideration of formal rules to ensure nondegradation of clean air sought to strike a balance between demands for economic growth and protection of pristine air resources where they exist, without harshly restricting future growth.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976: proposed amendment, 14562
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976: amend bill (S. 3219) to enact, 14562, 25577
14562; May 19, 1976; Muskie offers an amendment to the Clean Air Act which would provide for a three-year authorization and alter the auto emissions standards for oxides of nitrogen from 0.4 gram per mile, to 1.0 gram per mile, based on his conviction that the underlying law is sound and contains the remedies needed to enforce deadlines and clean air standards. Muskie says he is making this amendment available in case it appears that the original bill crafted by the committee does not win sufficient support. Muskie was not in favor of all elements of the committee bill.
25577; August 4, 1976; During the final debate on S. 3219, the Clean Air Act, Muskie briefly offers an amendment on behalf of Senator Inouye (D-Hawaii) to include the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in the bill, and a technical amendment establishing the formal citation for the bill as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976, both of which are unanimously accepted.
Nondegradation fact sheet, 15572-15576
Clean Air Act: nondegradation policy, 15572-15576
15572-15576; May 26, 1976; Muskie says that the amendments being proposed to the Clean Air Act’s nondegradation provisions mostly stem from misconceptions about the purpose and operation of the bill’s provisions on preserving clean air, and provides a fact sheet, rebutting some of the common complaints made against the bill. Opposition to Congressionally developed nondegradation provisions ranged from the claim that such a policy would immediately halt all further economic growth to claims that it was a backdoor method of imposing a federal land use policy on the whole country.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976: performance warranty to protect consumers, 15940
Letter: Amendment to the Clean Air Act to limit auto emissions performance warranty (sundry), 15941-15943
Memorandum: Issues and answers on the aftermarket industry and the performance warranty, Committee on Public Works, 15943
15940-15943; May 28, 1976; Muskie talks about a proposed Bentsen (D- Texas) amendment to the clean air act amendments which would reduce the required warranty period on auto emission control systems from 5 years or 50,000 miles to 18 months or 18,000 miles, and says it would benefit auto manufacturers at the expense of consumers. The warranty was intended to ensure that as the national fleet of autos was updated by consumer purchase and reduced use of older cars, overall air quality would improve and the improvement would be maintained for the useful life of the late-1970s fleet and into the future. The debate was fueled primarily by the independent auto service industry, which feared an intensified effort by auto manufacturers to require that any repair to emissions control systems be carried out with manufacturers’ original parts and by a franchised dealer. The bill actually banned any such requirement, but the natural tendency of auto buyers to return to franchised dealers for service was probably strengthened.
National clean air policy: relax standards, 16700
Letter: Modify provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970, President Ford, 16703
Report: Health and Welfare Effects of Pollutants Below National Air Quality Standards, Sierra Club (summary), 16703
16700-16703; June 4, 1976; Muskie reacts to a letter from President Ford to the Chairman of the Public Works Committee which asked for a longer delay on auto emissions deadlines and proposed entirely eliminating the concept of nondegradation in clean air regions. Noting that the primary and secondary air quality targets under the Clean Air Act reflect goals for the dirtiest-air regions, not the best attainable air quality, Muskie said that this would have the effect of providing for uniformly dirty air across the country, including those regions which are currently clean.
Allegations, Facts, and Reactions, Clean Air Act Amendments, with Senator Moss, 16998
16998; June 8, 1976; Senator Moss (D-Utah) formally responds to Muskie’s defense of the nondegradation provisions of the proposed clean air amendments, providing his own contrasting conclusions to the issues that Muskie listed. This formal rebuttal to a colleague’s remarks is somewhat unusual, particularly because Senator Moss had generally been a supporter of strong environmental protections. In this case, his claim was that the clean air requirements would effectively end all development in clean air regions.
At the time, the tensions between environmental needs and energy availability were giving the mining and electrical power utilities new opportunities to push for mining and generating facilities to serve a growing western population. Stringent air quality standards in the Los Angeles region were claimed as arguments in favor of developing a 5000 megawatt generating plant to be served by four open pit coal mines on the Kaiparowits Plateau, in southern Utah, a remote area surrounded by national parks, including Grand Canyon National Park. The proposal originated with a 23-company consortium of Californian and Arizona utilities in 1965, but growing opposition from environmental groups, native tribes and the general public, as well as the pollution and haze caused by the Four Corners power project in New Mexico, which came online in 1963, ultimately led to its abandonment. Although environmentalists have long claimed this as a victory, the collapse of the project also owed much to the 1975 withdrawal of a major utility, Southern California Edison, and the failure of power demand in southern California to reach projected levels.
Papermills and clean air, 18587
Report: Impact of Proposals on the Kraft Pulp and Paper Industry, Environmental Protection Agency, 18587-18597
18587-18597; June 16, 1976; Muskie talks about a study by the Environmental Protection Agency which examined whether new paper mills constructed or planned from 1971 to 1978 could have been built taking into account the proposed nondegradation requirements of the Clean Air Act. He notes that the study concluded that these planned expansions, all sited voluntarily by the industry, would have required minimal changes in pollution control technology, but would not have prevented construction or expansion at any location.
Public works: bill (H.R. 14236) making appropriations for water and power development energy research, 19826, 19827, 19836
19826, 19827; June 23, 1976; Muskie comments on H. R. 14236, an appropriations bill for water and power projects, noting that it is the first appropriation for Fiscal Year 1977, and that there is little room in the funding amounts for amendments that would add to the programs already in the bill. He also talks about the "cross walk" procedure, through which the functional categories of the budget are related to the specific bills which enact and finance the programs that make up the functional categories. This was the first time that the cross walk procedure was in place in the new budget process.
19836; June 23, 1976; During further debate on H.R. 14236, the energy and water projects appropriation bill, Muskie notes that because there is not much excess funding in the bill, efforts to earmark specific funds for solar energy should be set aside in favor of allowing the conference committee the flexibility it will need to reach agreement with the House.
Department of the Interior and related agencies: bill (H.R. 14231) making appropriations, 20831, 20832, 20834
Table: Department of the Interior supplemental appropriations, 20832
20831, 20832, 20834; June 26, 1976; Muskie makes his comments on the budgetary effects of H.R. 14231, the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, pointing out that with supplemental appropriations already anticipated, along with the uncertain amount needed for pay raises, and the Finance Committee’s request that spending be cut for every dollar in taxes that the tax bill will not raise, there is not a great deal of flexibility in any of the appropriations bills if the Senate wants to stay within the agreed-upon budget limits. In the early years of the budget process, Muskie spent a substantial amount of time explaining how the budget process played out practically speaking, something that many people in government would have preferred not to know.
Letter: Maine pollution abatement projects, Dennis A. Purington, 20864
20864 [Begins 20863]; June 26, 1976; Muskie notes that contrary to widespread the claims about difficulties implementing the Clean Water Act, the state of Maine has managed its waste treatment program so that none of the 26 pulp and paper plants in the state have been forced to close down or move, and all of them will be in compliance with the 1977 standards in 1977.
National pollutant discharge elimination system, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 20866
Court decisions: Friends of the Earth versus Carey (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2d circuit), 20867-20872
20866, 20867-20872 [Begins 20865]; June 26, 1976; Muskie reacts to the issuance of "enforcement compliance schedule" letters by the Environmental Protection Agency to preemptively delay the July 1, 1977 statutory deadline for pollutant discharges into water, and makes the argument that agency letters do not have the authority to change the applicable law by extending statutory deadlines for compliance. He notes that the extensions of deadlines were being issued in anticipation of a flood of litigation over the July 1, 1977 deadline, although only 230 cases had been filed in all 94 federal district courts, which he declines to characterize as a "flood" of litigation.
Beverage containers: requiring deposit, 21411
Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1976: bill (S. 2150) enact, 21411, 21417, 21426
21411; June 30, 1976; Muskie gives an endorsement of a Hatfield (R-Oregon) amendment to S. 2150, the Solid Waste Utilization Act, which would provide for returnable bottles and cans, saving on materials and reducing litter, an idea that was rejected 26-60. In the state of Maine, a similar returnable bottle petition was a referendum item on the November ballot, and a subject of very noisy controversy in the state at the time, although the citizens approved it in November. Muskie was running for reelection in 1976, so his endorsement of the proposal is less than full throated.
21417; June 30, 1976; Muskie sums up the provisions in the Solid Waste Utilization Act, S. 2150, including his particular amendment to authorize a $50 million fund to provide rural counties and small towns with federal grant money to help pay for the conversion to land fills from open burning and dumping, and to move dumps where there is danger of contamination of water resources. The clean air and water laws both provided substantial impetus to the existing movement away from open burning of trash, and more rural towns were facing expenses for trash disposal which their tax bases could not easily accommodate.
21426; June 30, 1976; Muskie compliments the Chairman of the Public Works Committee, Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia) for his successful stewardship of the solid waste bill, and thanks him for taking on the task of steering it to completion, since it was a bill that fell within the jurisdiction of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, which Muskie chaired.
Supreme Court: landmark clean air decision, 22249
Union Electric Co. versus Energy Environmental Protection Agency et al. (U.S. Supreme Court), 22249-22253
22249-22253; July 2, 1976; Muskie notes that the Supreme Court has handed down a landmark ruling in the field of clean air legislation with its assertion that the choice Congress made to force technology in this field by making stringent clean air requirements the law is a choice that cannot be overturned by arguments resting on economics or feasibility.
Public Works Employment Act of 1976: bill (S. 3201) to enact, veto message, 23086, 23087
Jobs Bill, Washington Post, 23087
Unwise Veto, New York Times, 23087
Cities Need More Federal Help, Chicago Sun-Times, 23088
23086, 23087, 23088; July 21, 1976; Muskie speaks on President Ford’s veto of S. 3201, the Public Works Employment Act, whose$3.9 cost had been substantially reduced from its earlier $6 billion, and which marked the sixth time in the ongoing recession that the Senate had to vote to approve the measure. At this time, the Presidential primaries were drawing to a close, former Governor Reagan had enjoyed some unexpected victories, and President Ford was not cruising easily toward the Republican nomination. One result of this was to limit his willingness to be flexible about bills he had already vetoed and to stick to his guns instead. President Ford faced a Democratic Congress, and to a large extent, tried to shape his administration through the veto, which he employed 48 times during his term of office.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976: bill (S. 3219), 23849-23853, 23864, 23948-23953, 23959, 23963-23968, 23980, 23985, 24287-24290, 24293, 24294, 24296-24298, 24301, 24303, 24308, 24310, 24311, 24515, 24551, 25179, 25180, 25191, 25543-25548, 25551, 25568-25572, 25576-25579, 25843-25845, 25848, 25870, 25872, 25873, 25877, 25882-25884, 25888
Table: Total annual auto emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, 23864
Table: Automobile emissions and air pollution (sundry), 23864
Report: Pollution Control and Employment, Council on Environmental Quality, 23865
Memorandum: Subject growth allowed within EPA's nondegradation scheme, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, 23963
Letter: Federal secondary ambient air quality, Russell E. Train, 23964
Memorandum: EPA regulations in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976, Leon Billings, 25543
Memorandum: Nondegradation – concept of increments, 25546
Report: Amendment 1608 to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976, 25837
Table: Total annual auto emissions (sundry), 25843
23849-23853, 23864, 23865; July 26, 1976; In opening what he knew would be a lengthy and contentious debate, Muskie sets forth his opening statement on S. 3219, the Clean Air Act Amendments, in the hope that members will have a chance to read his comments and be prepared to begin offering amendments the following day, so the Senate can move as expeditiously as possible. At about the same time as the debate on clean air, the Senate was also debating a major tax bill, in which Muskie was actively involved through his role as Budget Committee Chairman.
23948-23953; July 27, 1976; At the beginning of the debate on S. 3219, the Clean Air Act Amendments, Muskie summarizes the argument he presented in his formal opening remarks on the previous day, stressing that the goal of the clean air laws had always been to clean up the dirty area and not allow clean air to become polluted, and that the means by which this should be achieved should be determined by Congress, not piecemeal by the courts.
23958, 23959; July 27, 1975; Muskie and Senator Domenici (R-New Mexico) engage in a colloquy about the Domenici amendment, designed to write into statute law the existing ad hoc administrative practice of taking account of transient, naturally-occurring particulate levels in rural and western areas, such as dust storms, while the Environmental Protection Agency continues to examine the entire question of particulate levels and the relative contributions of manmade particulates and those occurring naturally. Senator Domenici withdraws his amendment, agreeing that it could open up every state’s clean air program to new litigation.
23961-23969; July 27, 1976; Muskie agrees with a proposed Randolph (D- West Virginia) amendment directing the Commission on Air Quality, a body created by the bill, to undertake a study of the nondegradation provisions of the act and report back to the Congress within two years, a proposal to which Senator Moss (D- Utah) objects, on the grounds that the study ought to be carried out before the language of the bill becomes law, not afterward. During the preliminary skirmishing on the nondegradation issue, Muskie noted that multiple studies had been done on the issue, and during this debate he notes that the goal of opponents is to make the primary and secondary ambient air quality standards the only standards for air quality, whereas the primary and secondary standards were established for the purpose of cleaning up dirty air, while the purpose of the nondegradation provisions is to make sure that air which is clean does not become dirty through the same processes that produced air pollution elsewhere in the nation.
23980, 23985; July 27, 1976; Muskie talks about some of the assumptions made in the Moss amendment, and defends the committee bill’s goal of preserving values such as visibility where the air is already clean enough that visibility is a value, particularly in the area of national parks, as well as the threat posed by acid rain, and argues that the bill’s nondegradation requirements simply slow the rate by which air resources are polluted.
23984,23985; July 27, 1976; Muskie briefly describes the budgetary impact of the clean air bill and notes that the authorizations provided for clean air programs have never been fully funded by the amounts actually appropriated, and then engages in a brief colloquy with Senator McClure (R-Idaho) over the amount of flexibility the Environmental Protection Agency will have to add a category of industry to the 28 listed which must receive specific approval to be constructed or expanded in a clean air region.
24287-24290; July 28, 1976; After a brief discussion of why Senator Moss (D-Utah) asked for an 8:00 a.m. convening hour to debate his amendment and then failed to show up to take advantage of it, Muskie engages in an exchange with Senator Allen (D-Alabama) on the Allen-Stone "perfecting" amendment, which modifies the pending Randolph (D- West Virginia) amendment by allowing the nondegradation provisions of the bill to become law but then requiring those provisions to be suspended for a year after the study called for in the amendment is completed.
24293, 24294, 24296-24298; July 28, 1976; Muskie and other Senators engage in a lengthy discussion of the order in which the Senate will take up various amendments, how long each amendment may be debated, and when votes may become possible, an illustration of the delays and confusion that can and do arise as each Senator seeks what he thinks will be the most favorable timing for his particular amendment.
24301, 24303; July 28, 1976; Muskie responds to a proposed Bentsen (D- Texas) amendment dealing with the manufacturers’ warranty requirement for catalytic systems. Senator Bentsen argued that the existence of a 5 year/50,000 mile warranty would encourage auto owners to turn to the franchised dealers for service, and proposed an 18 month/18,000 mile warranty instead to maintain independent service stations’ aftermarket share. Muskie argued that language making it illegal to tie any performance warranty to use of original parts and a certification program for replacement parts created an adequate safeguard for independent service stations without short changing consumers.
24308, 24310, 24311; July 28, 1976; In continuing debate on the performance warranty for emission control systems, Muskie says that the additional language offered by Senator Baker (R-Tennessee) serves to strengthen protections for independent service stations, and that the central issue is that in-use performance of emission controls is the only way to ensure that emissions are, in fact, controlled, and health-related air standards are reached.
24515; July 29, 1976; Muskie engages with Senators Allen (D- Alabama) and Moss (D- Utah) on the question of the timing of a vote on the Moss amendment, and in the face of what is becoming a filibuster by Allen, Moss and others opposed to the bill.
24551; July 29, 1976; Muskie and others agree to a complicated time table for laying down and debating the remaining amendments to the clean air bill, illustrating how difficult it often is for the Senate to find some mechanism to continue its work when even one or two members wish to be obstructionist. This elaborate agreement was made necessary by the Senate’s "unlimited debate" rule, which makes it impossible to stop a filibuster except with a three-fifths vote of Senators elected and sworn or a unanimous consent agreement, such as this one.
25179, 25180 [Debate begins p. 25178]; August 3, 1976; Elements of the agreed time table to reach and vote on amendments having become unraveled, there is a brief exchange between Muskie and Senator Moss (D-Utah) over the use of the remaining time available in the day before Moss calls up his amendment, and Muskie proceeds to argue that the difference between the bill and the Moss amendment is that the Moss amendment leaves in place as law regulations which the courts have upheld and which are much less flexible than the proposed bill. The fact that this debate became somewhat testy as it proceeded reflects the enormous pressure which had built up over the Clean Air Act in the preceding months and years, as the energy crisis led more and more industry members to use the perceived threat to energy supplies as a means of reducing the reach of environmental regulations. Senator Moss himself was under extreme assault from political opponents in his home state and he was in a very difficult race for reelection.
25191; August 3, 1976; Muskie engages in a brief colloquy with Senator Nunn (D- Georgia) to clarify the authority that the states would gain under the language of the bill over decisions as to siting plants, an authority the states do not have under the existing regulations.
25543-25548; August 4, 1976; As the debate moves to the Allen (D-Alabama) amendment, which would enact the nondegradation provisions but suspend their implementation for one year after a study had been completed, Muskie argues that the effect of the amendment is to eliminate the regulations that have been upheld by the courts and to replace them with nothing for a period of time while a study is carried out, because enacting the nondegradation provisions also suspended existing regulations. The issue here, buried as it is layers of not-very-elegant sarcasm, is that any delays or restrictions on the enactment and enforcement of environmental laws or regulations was seen by many as an opportunity to take a second bite at the apple and seek to achieve in a later Congress a result that could not be reached immediately. Muskie was well aware of the uses of delay by opponents of environmental law.
25551; August 4, 1976; After the close of the debate on the nondegradation provisions of the clean air bill, Muskie pays tribute to the contribution of Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia) the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
25568-25572; August 4, 1976; The Senate moves on to consider other amendments to the clean air bill, including Senator Stevens’ (R-Alaska) proposal that national park and wilderness areas to be set aside in Alaska receive a Class I designation under the bill to clarify their air quality status; a Bumpers (D-Arkansas) amendment to rectify an anomaly affecting Hot Springs national park in Arkansas; and a Tower (R-Texas) amendment dealing with after-sale installation of auto air conditioning units and the performance warranty for emission controls. Muskie clarifies the conditions under which the act could affect a particularly isolated copper smelting facility in Nevada, and accepts a Bentsen (D-Texas) proposal to have the Air Quality Commission expand by one member to make sure at least four of its members are state Governors, and that the Commission undertake a study of photochemical oxidants.
25576; August 4, 1976; Muskie accepts a Thurmond (R-South Carolina) amendment instructing the Commission on Air Quality to examine how best to deal with the location of new sources in a region that has not yet attained the primary ambient air quality standards; offers an amendment on behalf of Senator Inouye (D- Hawaii) to add the Pacific Trust territories to the regions covered by the bill, and offers technical amendments which are accepted.
25577-25579; August 4, 1976; As debate on the Clean Air Act winds down for the day, Muskie engages in a colloquy with Senator Stafford (R-New Hampshire) on the kinds of legal defenses available against noncompliance penalties, discusses citizens suits, and has a brief exchange with Senator Eagleton (D-Missouri) about vapor recovery systems for gasoline retailers.
25837; August 5, 1976; In response to a Hart (D- Colorado) amendment No. 1608, Muskie includes a committee staff paper detailing the issues involving with setting various levels of emissions for the different kinds of pollutants emitted by automobiles, which concludes that requiring a more stringent reduction in nitrogen oxides than the bill establishes would not be practicable in the time range involved. The issue in limiting auto emissions was always a balancing act between technology-"forcing" requirements and the ability of the industry to produce the technology required. It succeeded as well as it did in the early years of enforcement because little change had been made in the U.S. auto industry to adapt the engine technology and alternatives from Europe and Japan were already taking shape.
25843-25845; August 5, 1976; Muskie makes his remarks on the Hart (D- Colorado) auto emissions amendment, which would have forced auto emissions of nitrogen oxides to a level of 0.4 grams per mile instead of the committee bill’s level of 1.0 gram per mile permitted, and argues that while both limits represent a significant two-thirds reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, the 0.4 gram per mile standard has served the industry as a talisman of "impossible" technology advances being required by the law.
25848; August 5, 1976; Muskie continues the conversation after the vote on the Hart amendment, and others chime in to argue that the Hart standard is achievable and practical.
25870; August 5, 1976; Muskie engages in a brief colloquy with Senator Allen (D- Alabama) on the respective roles of the individual states and the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies on the question of reclassifying state land for air pollution control purposes.
25872, 25873; August 5, 1976; Muskie briefly responds to Javits (R-New York) and responds to his concerns about the Clean Air Act.
25877; August 5, 1976; Muskie explains that the committee bill contains flexibility for expansion of existing plants or construction of new sources of pollution in regions where the primary air standards have not been achieved is intended to be limited so as to preserve the overall goal of moving to attain those standards, and opposes the idea of loosening that limitation.
25882; August 5, 1976; Muskie talks about the basis on which opacity is used as one measurement of emissions control, and explains to Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia) that the use of opacity is a reflection of the fact that many state implementation plans include it, and that many of the industrial processes that are measured this way use older technologies that do not lend themselves to precise numerical measurement.
25884; August 5, 1976; Muskie has a brief exchange with Senator Gravel (D- Alaska) about the issue of naturally occurring particulate matter from airborne dust, and explores alternative ways to judge air quality containing such particulates.
25888; August 5, 1976; Muskie responds to an inquiry from Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia) asking whether the 2-year compliance delay available in some rare cases would apply to plants which have made an innovative change in their operations so as to either substantially reduce emissions below what is required or so cheaply that the method could become an industry standard, and outlines the ways in which clean coal technology could be affected by the compliance delay in limited cases.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act: amend bill (S. 2710) extend certain authorizations, 28096
28096; August 27, 1976; Muskie introduces an amendment to the Clean Water Act, and has its text printed. This was the Committee version of the bill, and it took the form of an amendment to a House-passed bill, S. 2710.
EDA Regulations on Public Works Jobs, Federal Register, 28100-28108
28100; August 27, 1976; Muskie has the regulations to govern the public works program printed in the Record as a means of making them more readily and speedily available to state and local officials for beginning the grant application process.
Role of the Corps of Engineers, 28353-28355
Corps of Engineers: role, 28353-28355
28353; August 30, 1976; Muskie traces the history of the controversial Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the Army Corps of Engineers is seeking to protect its definition of wetlands, and argues that his preferred solution to the problem would be to repeal Section 404 and allow the disposal of dredge and fill materials to be regulated by the States, as the States regulate other kinds of discharges into waterways.
Description: Water pollution committee amendment, 28670-28673
28670-28673; August 31, 1976; Muskie notes that he has had queries about the Committee approved amendment to the Clean Water Act, and provides an explanation of its purpose by way of a response.
Federal Water Pollution Act: bill (S. 2710) to amend, 28771, 28772, 28776, 28786, 28790-28792, 28795-28799
Analysis: Committee Amendment to S. 2710 (amending Federal Water Pollution Act), 28772
Report: Sewage Collection Systems Grants, 28775
Federal Water Pollution Control Act: amend bill (S. 2710) to amend, 28776
28771, 28772; September 1, 1976; Muskie opens debate on S. 2710, the committee’s original bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, explaining that the bill is a response to some of the issues addressed in the House-passed version of the bill, including the disposal of dredge and fill materials, and the extent to which the Army Corps of Engineers becomes involved in approving routine farming, forestry and construction activities. He stresses that the Senate proposal is a one-year extension, because the committee will look at the whole bill in 1977 and will then take up long range financing issues and the structure of the grant mechanism for federal water pollution control money.
28776; September 1, 1976; Resuming debate on S. 2710, Muskie has to resolve a brief kerfluffle over the form in which the amendment was adopted unanimously, which would have constituted final action on the entire bill, precluding any debate or amendment of the committee amendment, and instead, ask for consideration of the amendment, which places it squarely before the Senate for debate.
28786; September 1, 1976; During debate on S. 2710, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1976, Senator Stafford (R-Vermont) proposes to place a floor of one-third of one percent of the total funds as a minimum that all states must receive from the funds in the bill.
For that purpose, he proposes to add a $50 million authorization to the sums provided in the bill, so that no other state need fear losing money to the smaller states. Battles over funding formulas always pit the smaller states against the more populous ones, and various methods are devised to
defuse the situation, but Muskie argues that even though his home state, Maine, does not fare well under the amendment’s formula, that the formula was adopted by a large committee majority and it will be reviewed in 1977 to find a more fair way to deal with the claims of the smaller states.
28790-28794; September 1, 1976; Muskie joins in the debate over the Tower(R)-Bentsen(D) amendment, which would adopt the House-passed language on dredge and fill spoils disposal, arguing that his preference is to simply eliminate the section of law that deals with dredge and fill materials in navigable waters and instead allow those materials to be treated as a source of potential pollution under the general provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, because the effect of the amendment is to withdraw some three-quarters of all wetlands from any kind of protection.
28795; September 1, 1976; Muskie makes the argument that the limited loan authority in the bill is a product of special, nonrecurring circumstance, and results in greater fairness to towns and cities which have been disadvantaged by it. In the 1972 Clean Water Act, Congress agreed to repay those municipalities who had advanced locally-raised funds for waste water treatment facilities in the absence of any federal requirement to do so, but the subsequent impoundment of a substantial percentage of all waste water treatment funds short-changed a number of cities, a situation which remained unsettled. Muskie says correcting this problem with the extension of credit to the affected municipalities does not establish a precedent for a new form of backdoor spending.
28796; September 1, 1976; Muskie tells Senator Roth (R-Delaware) that he sympathizes with the idea that a better end result could be developed on the wetlands issue if Congress were willing to take a little longer, but points out that his efforts toward that goal met with little support from his colleagues, has a colloquy about wastewater treatment training programs with Senator Culver (D- Iowa), and makes a final budgetary comment on the funding of the bill.
Public works employment appropriations (H.R. 15194 ) to enact, 29691
29691; September 10, 1976; Muskie makes a brief comment on the budget effect of H.R. 15194, the appropriation of funds to carry out the public works employment program, which has been repeatedly passed and vetoed by the President.
No-Growth Bill, Wall Street Journal, 30473
30473; September 15, 1976; During debate in the House of Representatives on H.R. 10498, the Clean Air Act amendments, Representative Rousselot (R-California) provides an editorial comment blaming Muskie for seeking to halt economic growth with the nondegradation provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments. This less-than-reasoned opinion column is reflective of much of the more extreme rhetoric that surrounded the clean air debate at the time.
Water Resources Development Act: bill (S.3823) enact, 32907
Report: Water Resources Development Act: bill (S. 3823),cost estimate, Congressional Budget Office, 32908
32907, 32908; September 28, 1976; Muskie comments on S. 3823, the Water Resources Development Act, noting that its immediate budgetary impact is zero, because it authorizes funding only for Fiscal Year 1978, and endorsing the concept of fees for users of the inland waterways, which are maintained exclusively at federal expense.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976: bill (S.3219) to enact, conference report, 33897-33899, 34375-34386, 34389-34391, 34400, 34401, 34415
Senate: radical environmentalist groups, 34376
Table: Auto emission standards, 34384
Table: Estimated fuel economy of new car fleet (selected data), 34385
Analysis: Adequacies of House Version of Clean Air Act Amendments (auto emission), 34386
Adjournment: sine die, 34413, 34417, 34418
Adjournment: amend resolution (S. Con. Res. 211) providing for sine die, 34417
33897-33899; September 30, 1976; After some preliminary jockeying about on the issue of the filibuster that is expected to be mounted against the conference report on the Clean Air Act Amendments, S. 3219, Muskie calls up the conference report, whereupon Senator Garn (R-Utah) asks that the conference report be read, a common delaying tactic, to which Senator Humphrey (D- Minnesota) responds that the reading clerk has already been at his desk for 14 hours, and that this required reading constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment.
34375-34386; October 1, 1976; When the Senate votes 54-10 to proceed to consider the Clean Air Act Amendments, S. 3219, Muskie opens debate with a statement highlighting the motives of opponents and calling them into question, and a description of the amount of time consumed by the bill and the amount of time it has been available to be digested and understood by other Senators. One of the arguments made against the conference report was that it was being "rushed" through the Senate in insufficient time.
34388-34391; October 1, 1976; Muskie and Republican members of the Public Works committee congratulate each other on the qualities they bring to the work on pollution control, a mutual festival of tributes, until Senator Garn (R-Utah) begins to explicate his reasons for filibustering the conference report, which focus on the "radical" nature of some environment groups, an approach he insists he is not ascribing to his colleagues. Stripped of its rhetoric, Senator Garn’s argument was that unemployment in the workforce was directly caused by environmental laws, occupational safety and health laws, and similar protections of the general public. This point of view, that any regulation for any purpose costs jobs, has proven durable. Muskie engages him in debate of his general premise.
34400, 34401; October 1, 1976; Senator Moss (D-Utah) begins to explain his objections to the conference report on the Clean Air Act and is interrupted by Senator Metcalfe (D-Montana) who wants to voice vote a conference report on the Bureau of Land Management, a plan to which Muskie objects on the grounds that he wants to get on with the Clean Air Act. End-of-session gridlock such as this is relatively common in the Congress, and particularly in the Senate, where the filibuster is always an option. Senator Moss’ objections to the bill appear to have been rooted as much in his reelection hopes as in any other substantive factor. His bid for reelection failed.
34403; October 1, 1976; Illustrating how a filibuster can entirely derail a session of Congress, Muskie reiterates his opposition to taking up any matter other than the Clean Air Act until it is voted upon.
34409; October 1, 1976; This is another illustration of the knots into which the Senate can be tied under the conditions of a filibuster. Muskie speaks very briefly, but the chief action is focused on the conditions under which Senator Moss (D-Utah) is willing to give up his right to the floor.
34413, 34415, 34417, 34418; October 1, 1976; When an adjournment resolution is about to be called up, which would have the effect of ending the specific debate and winding up the entire 94th Congress, Muskie makes a brief statement outlining his objection and his understanding that in the circumstances, he is unable to take any further action in the current session to move the legislation forward.
List: State water pollution control programs runout date, 34809
Water pollution construction grants: 1977 funds, 34809
34809; October 1, 1976; Muskie notes that House of Representatives has refused to negotiate a compromise on the Clean Water Act Amendments, S. 2710, and that as a result, states will begin to run out of waste water treatment construction grant money in the first part of 1977; he includes a list of the affected states.
NATIONAL SECURITY/FOREIGN AFFAIRS
1976 94th Congress, 2nd Session
National Security Council: bill (S.2350) to include the Secretary of the Treasury as a member, 677
677; January 22, 1976; Muskie argues in favor of a veto override vote on S. 2350, a bill creating a National Security Council which would include as one of its members the Secretary of the Treasury. At this time, the National Security Council consisted of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretaries of State and Defense; the goal of adding the Treasury Secretary was in response to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Soviet grain sales in the same period, both of which events had economic repercussions internationally. President Ford vetoed the measure after the 1st session of the 94th Congress adjourned.
Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, 993
993; January 26, 1976; Muskie is one of the Senators named to be appointed to attend the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was to be held in New York, from March 15 to May 7, 1976.
Bush, George H.: nomination, 1171
1171; January 27, 1976; Muskie makes a brief statement explaining his vote in favor of the nomination of George H. W. Bush to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, which he says reflects his belief that a person with understanding of the political system and the oversight role of the Congress is an appropriate choice for leader of the agency.
International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1975: bill (S. 2662) to enact, 3640, 17654-17657
International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976: amend bill (S. 3439) to enact, 17652, 17654
Letter: Assistance for southern African countries, James T. Lynn,17654
3640; February 18, 1976; Muskie discusses the budgetary impact of S. 2662, the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act as it relates to the allowances provided for these two purposes in the Second Concurrent Budget Resolution, and warns that although at present the bill meets budget targets, much of it is based on estimates, and estimates can and do change as the year goes on, so further adjustments may be needed when it comes time to appropriate the funds.
17652; June 11, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a Hathaway (D-Maine) amendment to S. 3439, the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, to require a report to the Congress when arms sales are approved which include agreements for reciprocal arms purchases from foreign countries. This was a variant of an amendment that Senator Hathaway also attached to the defense procurement bill, and was intended to prevent U.S. arms suppliers from being cut out of potential contracts through pre-negotiated arrangements for favored contracts between two customers. Its genesis lay in the threatened purchase by the U.S. military of a Belgian machine gun in place of a U.S. produced machine gun which would be manufactured in Maine.
17654; June 11, 1976; During continued debate on S. 3439, the International Security Assistance bill, Muskie makes the point that $85 million in the bill for aid to Africa was not included in the Foreign Relations Committee’s estimates of budget authority, or in the President’s budget when Congress first considered the budget resolution, so that if it is accepted in this bill, it will mean some other program will be reduced to make room for it, or the deficit will have to be increased to cover the amount. Muskie then attempts to explain the process by which the Budget Committee reaches its functional target figures in response to a question.
Israel: deny certain benefits to taxpayers participating or cooperating with boycott (see S, 3138), 6460
6460; March 15, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a Ribicoff (D- Connecticut) bill, S. 3138, whose purpose is to deny foreign income tax benefits to companies which comply with the boycott of Israel, other companies that do business with Israel, and companies whose executives are Jewish. Senator Ribicoff made the argument that some 3000 U.S. corporations were compliant with the boycott, which allowed them to do business with Arab countries, and his bill proposed to deny tax benefits on any income earned in Arab companies to those in compliance with the boycott.
Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations, 1976: bill ( H.R. 12203 ) to enact, 7639-7641
Letter: Amendments to the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations, 1976, by Senator lnouye,7640
7639-7641; March 23, 1976; Muskie makes comments on the Foreign Assistance appropriations bill, H.R. 12203, noting that although its funding levels are below what was assumed in the 1976 Second Concurrent Budget Resolution, there is other legislation that will come before the Senate which may well force up the functional totals, with the end result that the Second Resolution itself would be breached, meaning that any bill coming along after that occurred would be subject to a point of order on the Senate floor.
Inter-American Development Bank and African Development Fund Act of 1976: bill (H.R.9721), to enact, 8664
8664; March 30, 1976; Muskie comments on the budget implications of H.R. 9721, the Inter-American Development Bank and African Development Fund Act of 1976, saying he will vote for the bill because of the long-term U.S. commitment to Latin America that it fulfils, but warns that appropriation of the funds required is a multi-year prospect and he reserves the right to vote such funds in the light of then-existing budget conditions.
Resolutions by organization: Award of contract to manufacture the M-60 machine gun to a Belgian concern, Maine State Legislature, 10367
Memorials of legislature Maine, 10367
Saco, Maine: Maremont Corp. and the machine gun, 10366
10366, 10367; April 9, 1976; Muskie is joined by his Maine colleague, Senator Hathaway (D), in speaking against a decision by the Department of Defense to award a contract for machine guns to a Belgian firm in place of a Saco, Maine company, Maremont, whose product, they claim is both cheaper and more appropriate for the purpose. They reproduce a resolution of the Maine State Legislature opposing the award of the contract to a non-U.S. firm.
International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1975: bill (S. 2662) to enact, conference report, 11584
11584; April 28, 1976; Muskie compliments the managers of S. 2662, the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act for preserving the budget resolution’s figures in the final form of their bill.
Appropriations: amend bill (H.R. 13172) making supplemental, 13307
13307; May 11, 1976; Muskie is shown as one of many cosponsors of a Pastore (D-Rhode Island) amendment to the second supplemental, H.R. 13172, providing for an additional $25 million in international disaster assistance for the victims of a northern Italian earthquake. On May 6, 1976, an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale struck in north eastern Italy, in the provinces of Udine and Perdnone. It was followed by some 30 aftershocks, and left 812 dead, 2300 injured and 45,000 homeless, as well as causing substantial damage to the regional infrastructure.
Committee on Intelligence Activities: resolution (S. Res. 400) to establish a Standing, 14651
14651; May 19, 1976; Muskie expresses his support for a Standing Committee on Intelligence Activities, a compromise between the type of committee recommended by the Government Affairs Committee and the more limited committee proposed by the Rules Committee. At this time, the Church hearings, named for Senator Church (D- Idaho) had uncovered a range of domestic activities by the CIA, activities illegal under the CIA charter, as well as a number of questionable projects overseas, including assassination attempts and other undercover activities that seemed to go beyond the goal of defending the country to the extreme of destabilizing other countries. There was a general shift of opinion that giving any President a free hand with intelligence agencies was not a good idea and that additional congressional oversight was well warranted.
Military installations: bill (H.R. 12384) to authorize certain construction, 14801, 14809
14801; May 20, 1976; Muskie comments briefly on the budget factors connected with the military construction bill, H. R. 12384, noting that it falls well within the bounds set by the second budget resolution.
14809; May 20, 1976; Muskie, joined by his colleague Senator Hathaway (D- Maine) talks about the need to reform the manner in which base reductions and realignments are carried out, saying that since the March Air Force announcement of an 83 percent reduction at Loring AFB in Aroostook County, northern Maine, Air Force personnel have not been forthcoming about the rationale or plans for the base reduction, producing a severe economic threat to thousands of jobs and families in northern Maine. He notes that the bill provides for a more orderly base closure process which should make the services more responsive to local communities, and comments with approval on a different part of the bill, which provides funds for modernization of the shipbuilding yard at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard at Kittery, Maine.
Letter: Underuse of Department of Defense facilities, by, 14800
14800; May 20, 1976; Muskie’s name appears as a signatory to a letter to the Secretary of Defense questioning the Army’s disproportionate allocation of military construction funds to Southern and Pacific states while existing defense facilities in the Northeastern states are allowed to deteriorate. As the military undertook a substantial down-sizing following the end of active engagement in the Vietnam war, forces and facilities were restructured, and each sector of the country naturally argued for its "fair" share of defense expenditures.
Letter: Weapons standardization of NATO, by, 15204
15204; May 24, 1976; Senator Hathaway (D- Maine) discusses the timing of an amendment on the question of weapons standardization for NATO troops in connection with the Military Procurement Authorization bill, H.R. 12438, and produces a letter to Senators signed by himself and Muskie. There is no individual Muskie text here.
Department of Defense: bill (H.R. 12438) making continuing appropriations, 15214, 15216, 15609-15611, 15617, 15618, 15620, 15671, 15672
Table: Comparison of Committee on Armed Services Authorizations with national defense functional targets in 1st concurrent resolution, 15610
Department of Defense: amend bill (H.R. 12438) making continuing appropriations, 15165, 15213, 15671
Letter: Disestablishment of the NROTC unit at Maine Maritime (sundry), 15214-15216
Study: NROTC units, Arthur W. Friedberg, 15214
15165; May 24, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a dozen Hathaway (D-Maine) amendments to H.R. 12438, the weapons procurement bill. In the case of a large or complex measure, such as the annual defense procurement bill, it is not uncommon for Senators to develop and lay down a series of amendments and then not call up each and every one of them.
15214; May 24, 1976; Muskie expresses his support for his and Senator Hathaway’s (D-Maine) amendment to more closely integrate the training at the Merchant Marine academies, such as Maine Maritime, with the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps so as to produce a better trained and coordinated Merchant Marine capable of working with the Navy as the need arises.
15609- 15611; May 26, 1976; Muskie comments on the budgetary implications of H.R. 12438, noting that to remain within the budget guidelines, a good many of the economies proposed by the administration, such as the pay cap and changes in certain retirement pay benefits, will have to be legislated, and examines the differences in the measure as approved by the House against the bill reported by the Senate committee.
15617, 15618, 15620; May 26, 1976; Muskie discusses with Senators Stennis (D- Mississippi) and Nunn (D-Georgia) the difficulties that will be entailed in conference between the Senate and House-passed versions of the defense procurement bill, and Muskie comments on the problems that are created by late budget requests from the administration, after Senator McIntyre (D- New Hampshire) has described the research and development sector of the defense budget.
15671, 15672; May 26, 1976; Muskie speaks in support of an amendment to require the Defense Secretary to report to the Congress within 30 days if he reaches an agreement to purchase NATO- made equipment in exchange for a NATO country making a purchase of U.S.-produced equipment. This amendment reflects the continued dispute that the Maremont Corporation has with the Department of Defense over its decision to award a machine gun contract to a Belgian firm. The Maremont facility at which the U.S.-made machine gun would be produced was at Saco, Maine, and the area stood to lose several hundred jobs if the contract were awarded overseas.
Italy: resolution (S. Con. Res. 105) to reaffirm U.S. support, 17627
17627; June 11, 1976; Muskie speaks in favor of S. Con. Res. 105, a resolution expressing the support of the Senate for democracy and freedom in Italy, and warns that passage of this resolution does not necessarily constitute a commitment on his part to back a proposed $6.7 billion loan guarantee for Italy.
The proximate cause of this resolution was the impending June 20 Italian election, which many at the time feared might bring the Italian Communist Party into a coalition government. In the 1975 regional elections, the Italian Communist Party won fully one-third of the vote, and the continued unemployment and inflation in the Italian economy, coupled with frequently inept government, made this outcome a very real possibility.
Although by 1976 much of the most intense Cold War fear of communism had abated, there was enormous concern about a variant, "Eurocommunism," which some thought might prove so seductive to Western voters that the Soviet Union would gain substantial influence in Western Europe through the franchise, thus countering and negating U.S. influence.
Italy was considered a significant NATO member as the Sixth Fleet was headquartered in Naples, and although the Italian Communist Party was not itself large, the local electoral successes of a number of communists as Mayors in Italian cities had come as a shock in the U.S. over the preceding years. In hindsight, it is probably fair to say that the Italian Communist Party gained influence directly in proportion to the bankruptcy of the other Italian political parties.
At the time, the potential of eurocommunism could not be forecast, and along with the growth and activities of assorted terrorist groups in European countries, the destabilizing effects of the oil price shocks, and what seemed to many to be increased international respectability on the part of the Soviets, there were fears that a new period of global instability was in store.
Military construction: bill (H.R. 14235) making appropriations, 20825
20825; June 26, 1976; Muskie comments that the military construction appropriations bill, H.R. 14235, is within budget guidelines, but the overall defense function must include several additional changes affecting retirement pay and cost-of-living allowances for civilian and military pay before it can be considered to remain within budgetary guidelines. During years of high inflation, Muskie was forced to remind the Senate that routine cost-of-living increases in federal pay could outrun budget ceilings unless they were reined in, a highly unpopular action for the Congress to take.
Department of Defense: bill (H.R. 12438) making continuing appropriations, conference report, 21981, 21985
21981; July 1, 1976; Muskie comments on the conference report on H.R. 12438, the defense procurement bill, noting that from a budgetary standpoint, it would be necessary to undertake the additional economies in pay raises and retirement benefits which were assumed in the budget resolution but have not yet been enacted.
21985; July 1, 1976; As the discussion of the conference report on H.R. 12438 continues, Muskie questions whether the language in the bill setting out the NATO standardization policy will be retroactively applicable or is intended to be prospective only. At this time, the District Court which was hearing the case made by the Maremont company had issued an injunction against the Pentagon continuing with the contract to purchase machine guns from a Belgian firm, and Muskie was concerned that the bill under discussion not undercut that court decision.
Report: Military Base Realignments, Committee on Armed Services (excerpt), 23367
Military installations: bill (H.R. 12384) to authorize certain construction, veto message, 23367
Letter: Military construction authorization, by, 23366
23366, 23367; July 22, 1976; Muskie speaks about President Ford’s veto message on H.R. 12384, the military construction bill, which singled out the base closing language in that bill as the reason for his veto. Muskie’s argument is that the convenience of military planners does not automatically take precedence over the interests of American citizens who live near military installations and whose lives and economic condition stand to be seriously affected by major base realignments.
Department of Defense: bill (H.R. 14262) making appropriations, 24923, 24933, 24993, 26337
Table: Status of the national defense function, 24933
24923; August 2, 1976; Muskie notes that the appropriations for defense, H.R. 14262, have come in below the budget figures, but warns that announcements by the Ford administration that it may resubmit certain research and development and procurement requests place a potential burden on the defense sector of the budget which could easily cause it to be breached. Muskie notes that if a department with a budget that is over $100 billion cannot find places to economize, perhaps the Congress should attempt to do that job for it. At this time, President Ford faced an increasingly tight race against former Governor Reagan as the Republican Convention approached, and one element of it was the Ford boast that he had managed to turn around an ever-declining defense budget.
24933; August 2, 1976; This index reference is an error. The referenced page concerns a discussion of commissaries and Muskie is neither cited nor speaks.
24993; August 2, 1976; Muskie joins Senator Hathaway (D-Maine) to clarify the reach and intent of the bill with respect to the Defense Department’s potential contract to purchase Belgian-made machine guns in preference to American guns, noting that the General Accounting Office is investigating and that the goal of NATO standardization ought not to become an end in itself when it serves no other purpose, such as saving money.
26337; August 9, 1976; Muskie explains his vote in favor of a Leahy (D-Vermont) amendment to cut $350 million from advance procurement funds for nuclear carriers, arguing that the case for such a fleet has not been properly made and that the funding will lead to a $2 billion commitment that is sure to exceed spending limits.
Letter: Department of Defense appropriations, by, 24974
24974; August 2, 1976; As Senator Hathaway (D-Maine) prepares to offer an amendment to the defense appropriation bill, H.R. 14262, he notes that he and Muskie have written to the president asking whether there are any side agreements on arms sales connected to the proposed sales of F-16s to certain NATO countries, particularly agreements affecting the Defense Department’s purchase of machine guns from a Belgian manufacturer. The letter he provides bears Muskie’s signature.
Military construction: bill (H.R. 14846) to authorize, proposed amendment, 27595
Military construction: amend bill (H.R. 14846) authorize appropriations, 27595, 28734
Text: Amendment (No. 2219), to authorize military construction, 27596
27595, 27596; August 25, 1976; Muskie offers a revised version of his base realignment amendment, No. 2219, to the new version of the military construction bill, H.R. 14846, introduced to take the place of the bill that President Ford vetoed. At the time, Loring Air Force Base in extreme northern Maine, was under consideration for a major down-sizing of approximately 85 percent or more, a process that had begun with virtually no advance warning to the officials of the area, although the Base was the area’s largest employer and source of income. Located almost 280 miles from Portland and almost 390 from Boston, the region was isolated and unlikely to attract major private employers. Muskie makes the argument that local officials and businesses have a legitimate reason to be consulted and warned about such a disruptive proposal which is just as significant as the "military convenience" cited by the President in his opposition to the base closing language in the version of the bill he vetoed.
28734; September 1, 1976; Senator Hatfield (R-Oregon), on behalf of Muskie, asks that Humphrey (D-Minnesota) be made a cosponsor of Muskie’s amendment No. 2219 to the military construction bill, H.R. 14846.
Foreign assistance appropriations: bill ( H.R. 14260) to enact, 29680
Letter: Foreign Assistance Appropriations, Senator Inouye, 29681
29680, 29681; September 10, 1976; Muskie comments on the budget implications of H.R. 14260, the Foreign Assist6ance Appropriations bill, noting that the bill incorporates a requirement that "reprogrammed" funding, either to expand a program or for a new program, must have the approval of the Appropriations Committee. Persistent efforts by Presidents over the decades have been made to shift funds around between programs as they choose, especially in the case of foreign aid. With the new budgetary procedures, Muskie urged that all Senate Subcommittees take what steps they could to discourage such "reprogramming" as much as possible, not only for the sake of budgetary accountability, but also to minimize freelancing in foreign affairs, another persistent tendency on the part of Presidents.
Military construction: bill (H.R. 14846) to authorize, 30453
Loring AFB, Maine: reduction proposal, 30453
Maine's Loring AFB, by, 30454
30453, 30454; September 15, 1976; Muskie comments on the base realignment language included in H.R. 14846, the military construction bill, and on the pending Air Force proposal to reduce Loring Air Force Base in northern Maine by some 85 percent, arguing that the Air Force’s stated reasoning makes no sense on its own terms. At the time, the Air Force was proposing to maintain the base facilities as a military installation, while reducing the manpower to 15 percent of its then-current number. Loring was the second-largest SAC (Strategic Air Command) base in the country, and the closest physically to the Eurasian continent, in particular, to the region of the Soviet Union which lay beyond the Ural Mountains, portions of which were of significance to U.S. military planning.
Letelier, Orlando and Moffitt, Ronni Karpen: condemn murders (see S. Res. 561), 34716
34716; October 1, 1976; Muskie joins a 28 colleagues to become a cosponsor of S. Res. 561, an Eagleton (D-Missouri) resolution condemning the assassination of Orlando Letelier, a Chilean exile living in Washington D.C. In 1970, Chile elected Dr. Salvadore Allende as its President, a choice to which the Nixon Administration took exception. Dr. Henry Kissinger famously remarked that he didn’t see why we had to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.
Shortly after Allende took office, the CIA was directed to "destabilize" Chile, a successful effort which ended in a military coup on September 11, 1973. Orlando Letelier, the Defense Minister in the Allende government, was held by the military regime for a year and then, at the request of the Venezuelan government, exiled to Venezuela. Many other members of the Allende government were exiled or chose to leave Chile in the wake of the coup.
Orlando Letelier moved to Washington D.C., and worked for a non-profit public policy group, through which he attempted to combat the military junta that comprised the Chilean government. Although most of what is now known about the assassination did not become public until a quarter century later, sufficient suspicions about the involvement of the U.S. government in the Chilean coup were contemporaneous, so in June 1976, Congress voted to bar the sale of military supplies to Chile. Reports from Chile indicated that the regime of General Augusto Pinochet was consolidating its power by the use of torture, "disappearances" of opponents, and widespread arrests and imprisonments. In the subsequent several years, prominent Chileans were assassinated in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Rome, and, in 1976, in Washington D.C. Mr. Letelier was killed by a remote-controlled bomb placed in his car, which also took the life of a young American co-worker, Ronni Karpen Moffitt.
At the time this resolution was proposed, the FBI had taken over the investigation of the murder, and there was broad suspicion that elements of the government, primarily the CIA, knew more about it than was being revealed. In 1978, the head of the Chilean internal security forces, General Manuel Contreras, was indicted along with others, by a federal grand jury. He was ultimately sentenced to seven years imprisonment after the Pinochet regime ended, and a newly elected Chilean government came to power with a mandate to restore the rule of law.
HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMS
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Letter: Future Homemakers of America, Leora Mitchell, 1279
1279; January 28, 1976; Muskie shares a letter from the Maine chapter of Future Homemakers of America, which asks him to help publicize it’s the week of national recognition for the organization.
Departments of Labor, and Health. Education, and Welfare and related agencies: bill (H.R. 8069) making appropriations, veto message, 1318
1318; January 28, 1976; Muskie describes the spending levels in the Labor-HEW appropriations bill, H.R. 8069, and points out that they are all within the target levels set by the Second Concurrent Budget Resolution, so that they do not exceed the limits of the Congressional Budget, and emphasizes that when the President claims the bill is over the budget, as he has done with this bill, he is referring to his budget priorities, not those of the Congress. This was just one of the 55 vetoes that President Ford issued during his months in office, and the issue before the Senate was whether the veto should be overridden.
Day care centers: bill (H.R. 9803) relative to staffing standards, 1561-1564
Memorandum: Budget and provisions of H.R. 9803, day care centers (sundry), 1562, 1563
1561-1564; January 29, 1976; Muskie comments on the budgetary implications of the day care bill, H.R. 9803, which established upgraded staffing standards for federally assisted day care centers, pointing out that even though this is technically appearing to come under the rules for Fiscal Year 1977, it is being treated as a Fiscal Year 1976 item, because a 6-month delay was requested by day care operators who could not afford to adopt the newer staffing standards without some lead time.
Crisis in Public Pension Systems, Senator Eagleton, New York Society of Security Analysts, 2072
2072; February 3, 1976; Muskie offers an Eagleton (D- Missouri) speech on the costs of public pension programs for state and local governments and his suggestions for how best to rein in the accumulating costs that future generations will otherwise be asked to pay.
Essay: How a Handicapped Person Approaches Life, Terry Nelson, 6678
6678; March 16, 1978; Muskie shares an essay by a Maine student, based on an interview with a former truck driver who lost both legs in an accident, and has adjusted to a different kind of life.
Postal Service: relating to the closing of third- and fourth-class post offices (see S. 2962), 7304
7304; March 22, 1978; Muskie becomes a cosponsor of a Scott (R-Pennsylvania) bill, S. 2962, to establish criteria for the U.S. Postal Service to consider before closing third and fourth-class post offices. Although the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act that established the U.S. Postal Service as an independent agency specifically prohibited closing smaller post offices solely for operating at a deficit, proposals for cost savings from reorganization have been continuous and many, particularly in the first decade of the Postal Service’s existence, focused on eliminating smaller post offices, a goal often fiercely resisted by the residents of small rural communities.
Food Stamp Reform Act of 1976: bill (S. 3136) to enact, 9383-9386, 9388-9390, 10107
9383-9386; April 5, 1976; During debate on S. 3136, National Food Stamp Reform bill, Muskie and other Senators discuss the application of the budget law to the bill and its costs. By the time of this debate, the food stamp program had been a national program, available in all jurisdictions of the country, for just under two years, and what most people saw as its explosive growth was giving rise to a great deal of concern over its costs. The food stamp program was tentatively begun in 1939, in response to Depression-era want, but was then suspended and not revived until 1964 when it was created as a joint federal-state program which states and their local jurisdictions were permitted to join, but not required to join. The Department of Agriculture at that time estimated that the program could eventually cover 4 million persons. Incremental changes in subsequent years encouraged more local jurisdictions to join the program, and by 1971, national eligibility standards were set, which encouraged broader participation. In 1973, when Congress made food stamp participation at the state level mandatory, the program’s growth was substantial, and by mid-1974, almost 14 million persons were beneficiaries. The structure of the food stamp program was never well understood, and its expansion nationally made it very vulnerable to calls for massive cutbacks and reductions, and to claims that it was riddled with fraud and abuse.
9388-9390; April 5, 1976; Muskie continues the discussion of how the various provisions of the budget act apply in a situation where an entitlement bill would take effect in the same fiscal year rather than the following fiscal year, and after some back and forth, it is finally settled that the bill is not subject to a point of order under the budget law.
10107; April 8, 1976; In continued debate over the major amendment, a Dole (R-Kansas) substitute amendment simplifying some of the eligibility limits and tests and providing for a small pilot program study on eliminating the purchase requirement, Muskie discusses how the technical application of budget requirements should not be used as a means to defeat consideration of the proposal, since the underlying proposal itself, to cut food stamp costs, had been an explicit mandate of the second concurrent budget resolution for 1976.
Health services: resolution (H. J. Res. 890) making emergency supplemental appropriations for preventive, 10314
10314; April 9, 1976; During debate on emergency supplemental appropriations bill, H. J. Res. 890, Muskie points out that the larger items included in the bill have been assumed in the budget resolutions, and the one item which was not, $135 million for swine flu vaccination, could not have been foreseen a year earlier. In February, 1976, a 19-year-old army recruit at Fort Dix, in New Jersey, complained of fatigue and weakness and died 24 hours later. Doctors subsequently found that at least 500 soldiers had had this influenza without falling ill, a very rapid spread of a disease which was identified as being of the same strain that killed almost 20 million persons worldwide in 1918. Federal public health officials concluded that an effort should be made to inoculate the population, a goal adopted energetically by President Ford, some say after an unexpected primary election loss to Ronald Reagan in North Carolina. As a result, $135 million was to be appropriated on an emergency basis so as to purchase the manufacture of the necessary vaccine.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act: carrying out, 13342, 13344
Appropriations: bill (H.R.13172) making supplemental, 13342, 13344, 13345
Report: Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services, Committee on the Budget (excerpt), 13344
13342-13344; May 11, 1976; Muskie speaks in opposition to a Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) amendment to the second supplemental appropriations bill to add $1 billion to the Title I compensatory education program designed to provide services to low-income students, and points out that the overall budget for educational functions has been substantially increased in recent years, and that other equally significant priorities would have to be set aside if this $1 billion were approved. He debates this with Senator Kennedy briefly, and includes the Budget Committee’s report on the education function in the budget.
Social security: bill (H.R. 12455) to extend certain payment period, 14866-14868
14866-14868; May 20, 1976; Muskie notes that the bill providing funds for Title XX of the Social Security Act, H.R. 12455, represents a new entitlement program, and should therefore be held in abeyance until the Senate Finance Committee can properly report it to the full Senate. The element in this bill which constituted a new entitlement was funding for safety, sanitation and staffing costs in federally-subsided day care programs, an entitlement to the states and those agencies operating day care programs. Muskie explains in some detail the budgetary checks and balances established to ensure that entitlement spending is kept under control.
Committee on Mental Health and Illness of the Elderly: grant additional year to carry out duties (see S. 3481), 15159
Committee on Mental Health and Illness of the Elderly: legislation to grant additional year to carry out duties, 15159
Text: S. 3481, to grant additional year to carry out duties for the Committee on Mental Health and Illness of the Elderly, 15160
15159-15160; May 24, 1976; Muskie introduces a bill to provide for an extra year of existence to the Committee on Mental Health and Illness of the Elderly, noting that although the bill that included this committee became law in July 1975, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare had failed to name its members, as a result of which the one-year term of its existence would expire with nothing having been done. The purpose of the Committee was to examine and recommend to the Congress steps to improve the services available to older Americans for psychological treatment and care.
"Fraud and Abuse Among Clinical Laboratories": print additional copies (see S. Res. 454), 15917
15917; May 28, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of S. Res 454, a Moss (D-Utah) resolution to authorize the printing of additional copies of a report on fraud and abuse among clinical laboratories. At the time, this was one of the earliest attempts at a comprehensive survey of medical laboratories and demand for the report ran high.
Health Maintenance Organization Amendments of 1976: bill (S. 1926) to enact, 17912
Letter: Appointments to the Committee on Mental Health and Illness of the Elderly, David Mathews, 17913
17912, 17913; June 14, 1976; Muskie says he is pleased that his bill to provide an extra year of existence to the already-authorized Committee on Mental Health and Illness of the Elderly, has been accepted as a provision of S. 1926, the Health Maintenance Organizations Amendments bill, and notes that the Secretary has said in a recent letter that these appointments would be made soon.
Departments of Labor, and Health. Education, and Welfare and related agencies: bill (H.R. 14232) making appropriations, 21441, 21442
Table: Labor-HEW supplementals effect on budget: selected data, 21442
21441, 21442; June 30, 1976; Muskie comments on the differences between the Administration’s budget assumptions underlying the Labor-HEW appropriations bill, H.R. 14232, and notes that these differences, as well as several programs not yet enacted and therefore not funded by this bill, may be coming up later in the year and could contribute to breaking the budgetary ceilings for the measure. These appropriations, in particular, were almost always subject to controversy, because they included funds for "welfare" type programs, and were therefore thought to be a good target for budget-cutting rhetoric.
Letter: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 23337
23337; July 22, 1976; During debate on H.R. 2212, a bill reauthorizing the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Senator Hruska (R-Nebraska) says he has asked for and received assurances from Muskie, as Chairman of the Budget Committee, that his proposed amendment to establish a revolving fund to finance anti-fencing operations, is squarely within the Budget Act, and offers his letter and Muskie’s response in proof of this.
Anti-fencing operations briefly enjoyed popularity as a crime-fighting idea following a federal-local police operation in the District of Columbia, in which local police and FBI officials established a "business" known as P.F.F. Inc. to receive stolen goods. They put the word out on the street that the "Mafia" was planning to expand to Washington and would pay top dollar for property, and at the same time, they cultivated the local criminal class. After five months of operations, in which in which 3500 stolen items, valued at $2.4 million, were recovered, they threw a "surprise party" for their new "friends" to introduce them to the "Don" of the Mafia family, at which more than 200 thieves and dealers were arrested. Many of the officers involved in this operation were of Italian-American background, and gave themselves names such as Angelo Lasagna and Rico Rigatone, thus also demonstrating the intellectual limitations of the local criminal class. P.F.F. Inc. was an acronym standing for Police-FBI Fencing Incognito.
Crime Control Act of 1976: bill (S. 2212) to enact, 23355
23355; July 22, 1976; Muskie makes a brief statement about S. 2212, the Crime Control Act, and its funding levels in relation to budget targets, and notes that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is a very flexible grant to the states for crime control and administration of the criminal justice system, and has been successful in Maine. At this time, approximately 5 percent of the costs of law enforcement at the state and local level were federally funded. While there is no doubt that many localities used the additional funding for valuable purposes, this was a program which ultimately became notorious for its tendency to encourage gold-plated police hardware without a concomitant reduction in actual crime rates.
National Family Week: designate (see S.J. Res. 101), 25267
25267; August 3, 1976; Muskie is named a cosponsor of a Burdick (D- North Dakota) resolution to designate the week in November which includes Thanksgiving Day as National Family Week.
Emergency Jobs Programs Act of 1976: bill (H.R. 12987 ) to enact, 26608
26608; The page number cited is incorrect. The Muskie statement on H.R. 12987, the emergency jobs bill, actually appears on page 26615.
26615; August 10, 1976; Muskie discusses the mix of public service jobs programs under consideration, and notes that the bill under discussion, H.R. 12987, is particularly significant because it targets the long-term unemployed and those already receiving public assistance, so that estimates are that more than 40 percent of the cost of the program would be returned to or retained by government through a combination of taxes paid and welfare assistance not needed.
Influenza immunization program: bill (S. 3735) to establish a national, 26636
Memorandum: Effective date of the National Swine Flu Immunization program, 26636
26636; August 10, 1976; Muskie notes a technicality about the starting date of the proposed swine flu immunization program, which he says should not derail action on the bill, because it would be a one-time only program, not a continuing entitlement. The bill in question had to be written and passed because the pharmaceutical companies which were to produce the vaccine refused to be liable for any subsequent damage claims from citizens injured by it. The bill provided for federal governmental liability for such claims.
Citizen Action on the Casco Bay Islands. Portland (Maine) Press-Herald, 27953
27953; August 26, 1976; Muskie notes an editorial about how Casco. Bay islanders have worked to construct a health services center which is finally open, so that islanders do not have to travel to the mainland for basic health care, and the dedication of a gun emplacement, a 13-year project of the Peaks Island Conference Center, with 40 international journalists invited to what is hoped to become a conference center. Casco Bay contains a number of islands with small year-round populations, and service provision for such populations has long been a problem for the coastal regions of Maine. At the same time, the islands are picturesquely located with 15-minute ferry access to Portland, and conference and events facilities offer a way to encourage visitors.
Education Amendments of 1976: bill (S. 2657) to enact, 28153-28155, 28178
Table: Impact of S. 2657 on First Budget Resolution for fiscal 1977, 28153
Table: Potential budget status for programs funded by the Labor-HEW Subcommittee on Appropriations, 28154
Education Amendments of 1976, by Senator Mondale, 28178
28153- 28155; August 27, 1976; Muskie talks about the funding limitations on the education function in the budget, pointing out that if proposed changes in the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs) are fully funded, Congress will have spent well over the amount allowed under the budget resolution, requiring either cuts in popular programs or higher spending and a resultant higher deficit.
28178; August 27, 1976; Muskie asks that the text of Senator Mondale’s (D-Minnesota) statement on S. 2657, the Education Amendments bill, be printed. Members often enough request that those expecting to be on the Senate floor do them a favor by dropping a speech in when they cannot be present themselves. In this instance, Mondale’s statement simply describes the major provisions of the bill.
Medicare and medicaid abuses: strengthen prosecution (see S. 3901), 29659
29659; September 10, 1976; Muskie is shown as a sponsor of a Talmadge (D-Georgia) bill, S. 3901, dealing with Medicare fraud. Senator Talmadge characterized this as a short-range interim bill to begin dealing with fraud in the medicare and medicaid programs while he developed a more comprehensive response. Numerous hearings in the mid-1970s showed that the incidence of overbilling and other kinds of fraud appeared to be on the rise. At the same time, many states lacked statutes defining wrongful billing under the programs as a crime.
Smith College, Northampton. Mass.: bill (H.R.1396) providing relief, 30706, 30709, 30710
College tuition: tax credits, 30706, 30709. 30710
30706, 30709, 30710; September 16, 1976; During debate on H.R. 1396, a bill providing relief for Smith College, Muskie argues against a Roth (R-Delaware) amendment that would provide a tuition tax credit for all full-time students in higher education institutions. A similar provision was debated in connection with the tax bill earlier in the year, and passed the Senate, but was dropped by the conference committee with a commitment to bring it up again as a free-standing vote. When the measure passed on a voice vote (with Muskie voting No), Senator Allen (D-Alabama) moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment passed, a move similar to a tabling motion, which would have the effect of either killing the prior vote or sustaining it, but on a recorded vote. The recorded vote then held on the motion to reconsider was 21 to 62, meaning that the earlier voice vote to approve was sustained.
Letter: Black Lung Benefits Reform Act (H.R. 10760), by, 31497
31497; September 21, 1976; Senator Randolph (D- West Virginia) offers a resolution to waive certain provisions of the Budget Act as they would apply to the entitlements for black lung benefits for coal miners, and provides a letter from Muskie, as Chairman of the Budget Committee, laying out which provisions of the Budget Act are implicated in moving this bill through the Senate. One of the initial effects of the Budget Act being put into practice was that numerous members sought rulings from the Budget Committee on how the Act applied to specific bills, because in these years, the question of whether a bill could be afforded or not was one of the principal issues involved in every bill that cost money.
Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976: bill (H.R. 10210) enact, 33304
Supplemental security income program, 33304
33304; September 29, 1976; Muskie notes that while H.R. 10210, the unemployment compensation amendments bill, is within the parameters of the budget resolution as it has been confirmed by the Senate, floor amendments designed to change the spending or revenue provisions in the bill would inevitably force other changes in spending to make allowances for more funds for specific programs. The effort to keep the Senate focused on all the budgetary effects of its votes was one that Muskie took seriously, but over time it proved to be more and more difficult, as Senators found their usual voting preferences apparently blocked by Budget Act provisions and requirements.
Departments of Labor, and Health. Education, and Welfare and related agencies: bill (H.R. 14232) making appropriations, veto message, 33863
33863; September 30, 1976; Muskie makes the argument that President Ford’s veto of the 1977 Labor-HEW appropriations bill, H.R. 14232, is not based on its overall costs, but on the fact that it reflects spending priorities which differ from the President’s preferences, and says that is no reason to defer the congressional judgment to the executive branch. Muskie made continuing efforts to remind his colleagues that with control of spending, the Congress is the body which has the primary choice in allocating spending among different priorities, a lesson that seems lost on successive congresses.
Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe: land claims of (see S. Con. Res. 212), 34722
34722; October 1, 1976; Muskie is a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 212, a Hathaway (D-Maine) resolution setting forth the sense of the Senate that the claims being pursued by the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Indian tribes should be resolved by monetary settlement. The Maine Indian Lands Claim case arose under an interpretation of a 1790 law, the Indian Non-Intercourse Act and land cession treaties which were not ratified by the Congress. The tribes laid claim to 12.5 million acres, two-thirds of Maine’s land area, claiming that such unratified treaties made present-day titles to the land invalid. Although the land claim was settled with a substantial federal payment in 1981, for a time it threw into doubt local bond issuing authority and threatened to throw the entire real estate market into chaos.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976: enact (see S. 2925 ), 2040
2040; February 3, 1976; Notice only of Muskie’s introduction of the Government Economy and Spending Reform bill, S. 2925.
Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976: introduction, 2130-2133
Study: Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976, 2131, 2132
2130-2133; February 3, 1976; Muskie makes his opening statement on S. 2925, the Government Economy and Spending Reform Act, arguing that Congress ought to have some way to review program goals and aspirations against program operations, and terminate those programs which are not meeting their goals. The bill proposes to have all programs in a budget function reviewed every four years, and to terminate those which are not affirmatively renewed. The proposal was based on an idea then becoming popular among some of the states, of "sunsetting" agencies that had outlived their usefulness, and was popularly referred to as the Sunset bill.
Bicentennial Commission on Presidential Nominations: establish (see S.J. Res. 166), 2507
2507; February 5, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a S. J. Res. 166, a Mondale (D- Minnesota) joint resolution to establish a Bicentennial Commission on Presidential Nominations, to review how presidential nominees are chosen. The mixed system of caucuses and primaries has been a subject of annoyance to many politicians over the years, as different methods of nomination create different and distinct hurdles to climb, but despite hopeful efforts such as this, it has never been rendered uniform.
Committee on Government Operations: notice of hearings, 5382, 6003
Committee on the Judiciary: notice of hearings, 5382
5382; March 4, 1976; Muskie announces that on March 5, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and the Subcommittee on Administrative Practices and Procedures will hold a joint hearing on S. 2690, the Federal Domestic Assistance Information Act, and S. 3021, the Program Information Act.
6003; March 10, 1976; Muskie announces that the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations will hold hearings on S. 2925, the Government Economy and Spending Reform Act, on March 23, 24, 25, and April 6, 7 and 8.
Intergovernmental Personnel Act: evaluation of grant program, 8781
Governments, National Academy of Public Administration (introduction and summary), 8781-8783
8781; March 31, 1976; Muskie provides the conclusions reached by a panel of the National Academy of Public Administration on the operation and use of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, noting that although he does not endorse all the conclusions reached, the report is a useful one to consider improvements and changes in the law.
Committee on Government Operations: notice of hearing change, 8977, 9328
8977; April 1, 1976; Muskie announces that on April 12 and 13, his Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations will hold a hearing on the creation of an office of Minority Business Enterprise.
9328; [actually 9327]; April 5, 1976; Muskie states that the previously announced April 12 and 13 hearing will be changed to begin April 13.
Bolduc Carves Mark into Bureaucracy, Don Larrabee, Portland (Maine) Telegram, 11521
11521; April 28, 1976; Muskie takes note of Maine press story about an Assistant Secretary for Administration at the Department of Agriculture who from Lewiston, Maine, and whose efforts to streamline the operations of the Agriculture Department have led to reduced paperwork and fewer reports
Spending Reform (sundry), 11527-11533
Spending reform, 11527, 15599
"Sunset Proposal — How to Ride Herd on the Budget," Richard C. Leone, Nation magazine, 15600
11527-11533; April 28, 1976; Muskie notes that although his spending reform proposal, the so-called "sunset" bill, has drawn relatively little attention within the Congress, it has had a wider appeal in news reports. The goal of the bill was to force a re-examination of all government spending programs, by function, on a four-year basis, giving Congress a clearer chance to zero out those programs which overlapped or were duplicated by others, as well as those for which the need had vanished.
15599,15600; May 26, 1976; Muskie mentions that the Treasury Secretary of the State of New Jersey, Richard C. Leone, testified on the sunset proposal before his subcommittee and has produced an article which discusses the twin ideas of zero based budgeting and sunsetting of programs and agencies, and shares it.
Remarks in House relative to: Reorganize Government agencies, 13432, 13433
Reorganize Government Agencies, 13432
13432; May 11, 1976; Congressman Kemp (R-New York) notes that his version of a sunset bill is modeled on the Muskie proposal S. 2925, and in describing his proposal, he quotes Muskie at some length. This statement provides a typical example of the reasons why a sunsetting approach appealed to conservatives at this time.
Federal Program Information Act: bill (S. 3291 ) to enact, 17664
17664; June 11, 1976; Muskie speaks in support of S. 3291, a bill designed to provide English-language access to a computerized database of information on federal programs, primarily for the benefit of officials of smaller jurisdictions. At this time, slow and tentative beginnings were being made to computerize aspects of the federal information system, but for the most part, they were limited in use to those who were computer-literate and proficient in programming languages, an extremely small group, and not widely represented among town and city managers and other officials. The bill built on the success of the Agriculture Department, which had developed a Federal Assistance Program Retrieval System (FAPRS) covering agriculture programs, and based in its widespread network of extension offices and similar agencies around the country at a time when most small towns did not own a computer terminal of their own. Over time, the success of FAPRS had led to a broadening of the information it was providing, and the purpose of the bill was to establish and authorize a separate Center for Program Information which could relieve the Agriculture Department from the costs of collecting information from other federal agencies.
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1976: amend bill (S. 2477) enact, 18280
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1976: bill (S. 2477) to enact, 18280, 18281
18280, 18281; June 15, 1976; Muskie introduces an unprinted amendment to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, to preserve the reporting requirements in the bill while nonetheless allowing local affiliates of national organizations to continue their activities without burdensome reporting requirements. The difficulty in developing any law to regulate lobbying activity runs into the constitutional guarantee of a right of citizens to petition their government, and this amendment was Muskie’s effort to preserve that basic right without giving up the public interest in having clear and accurate reporting requirements on the sources and magnitude of the money spent attempting to influence Congress. This balance continues to be an elusive one.
Local Public Works Employment Act: bill (S. 3201 ) to enact, conference report, 18528, 18530, 18532
Many Municipalities Lag Behind the Nation in Economic Recovery, Wall Street Journal, 18528
18528-18532; June 16, 1976; Muskie comments on the conference report on S. 3201, the Local Public Works Employment Act, arguing that the inclusion of countercyclical assistance to local and state governments has been accepted by the Senate as an integral part of the economic recovery program, and inserts an article which chronicles the substantial deterioration of inner cities taking place at this time.
Intergovernmental Personnel Act: State of Maine report, 21612
21612; June 30, 1976; Muskie briefly comments that although Maine received the minimum federal payment under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, $70,000, the state nonetheless managed an impressive array of program activities in its fourth year of administering the law.
Programs That Self-Destruct, Neal R. Pierce, Washington Post, 24277
Government Economy and Spending Act: additional cosponsors, 24277
24277; July 28, 1976; Muskie talks about the progress made so far in moving the Government Economy and Spending Reform Act, the sunset bill, through the Government Operations Committee, and shares a column describing some of the opposition to the proposal.
Report: Committee on Government Operations, 26200
26200; August 6, 1976; Muskie reports S. 2925, a bill to provide for the elimination of inactive and overlapping federal programs, to require authorizations of new budget authority for government programs and activities at least every 4 years, Report No. 94-1137. This is the Government Economy and Spending Reform Act, known as the sunset bill.
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act: amend bill (H.R. 13367) to enact, 29824, 30319
29824; September 13, 1976; Muskie joins Hathaway (D-Maine) in cosponsoring Amendment No. 2285 to H.R. 13367, the bill reauthorizing the general revenue sharing program. This page reflects the notice of the amendment’s filing only.
30319; September 14, 1976; During debate on the general revenue sharing bill, Senator Hathaway (D-Maine) calls up his amendment and says he is offering it as a way to maintain the revenue sharing study that the underlying bill calls for, but instead of creating yet another new commission, referring the study requirement to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, an existing body, which he describes as being Muskie’s suggestion.
Revenue sharing: bill (H.R. 13367) to extend, 30322, 30324, 30327
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act: bill (H.R.13367) to enact, 30322, 30324, 30327
30322, 30324; September 14, 1976; During debate on H.R. 13367, the revenue sharing bill, Senator Javits (R-New York) offers an amendment to provide that instead of quarterly payments, revenue sharing funds be paid monthly, contending that the quarterly payment forces certain jurisdictions to borrow against the anticipated revenue sharing funds, at a cost of additional interest paid on that borrowing and a tax loss to the federal government because municipal bonds are tax-free. The amendment also provided that those 15,000 jurisdictions receiving $4000 or less per year be paid in one payment, rather than quarterly. Muskie indicates his opposition to the proposed amendment because it would have the effect of shifting $1 billion in federal spending from Fiscal 1978 into Fiscal 1977, and would thereby increase the Fiscal 1977 budget deficit by as much. The amendment is rejected.
30327; September 14, 1976; Muskie makes a brief statement in support of the concept of revenue sharing and provides a budget analysis showing that the bill as approved falls within the amounts assumed in the second concurrent budget resolution.
Effective Government, by, National Journal, 30971
30971; September 17, 1976; In the runup to debate on the sunset bill, Senator Glenn (D-Ohio), a cosponsor of the bill, recommends a Muskie column about the public dissatisfaction with government which contributed to the development of the idea.
Federal programs: reevaluation every 4 years (see S.3834), 31204
31204; September 20, 1976; Notice only of Muskie’s introduction of S. 3834, sunset bill as reported from the Government Operations Committee. The bill is placed directly on the calendar as an original bill.
32223; September 23, 1976; Muskie makes a brief statement about the sunset bill before announcing that there is insufficient time to debate it before adjournment and that he will work to make sure the debate is held early in the next Congress.
Remarks in Senate relative to : Tributes, 32225, 32227
32225, 32227; September 23, 1976; In separate statements on the sunset bill, both Senators Humphrey (D-Minnesota) and Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) praise Muskie for developing it.
Government Economy and Spending Reform; Amend bill (S. 3834) to enact, 32244
32244; September 23, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a proposed Glenn (D-Ohio) amendment to the sunset bill, whose purpose is to apply the same procedures to tax expenditures and incentives as would be applied to direct spending programs under the sunset bill approach.
Glenn, Senator: tribute, 32359
Sunset Legislation, Senator Glenn, 32359
32359; September 24, 1976; Muskie comments that Senator Glenn’s (D-Ohio) statement about the sunset bill reflects the strong support he has given to the concept, and his own commitment to incorporating a review of tax expenditures along with program spending when it is enacted.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, CIVIL LAW
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Hart, Senator Philip A.: tribute, 1278, 1882, 33809
Senator Phil Hart, Senator Kennedy, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 1278
Philip Hart: Gentle Way as the Effective Way, Colman McCarthy, Washington Post, 1882
1278; January 28, 1976; Muskie notes that Senator Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) has given an eloquent tribute to Senator Phil Hart (D-Michigan) and his work on civil rights issues. Senator Hart was not running for reelection in 1976; he was suffering from cancer and died on December 26, 1976. He was probably Muskie’s closest friend in the Senate.
1882; February 2, 1976; Muskie says a column about Senator Phil Hart (D-Michigan) by Colman McCarthy accurately portrays the character and qualities of the man.
33809; September 30, 1976; Muskie joins other colleagues in making brief remarks on the retirement of Phil Hart. The Senate traditionally takes time near the close of a session to pay tribute to members who are retiring, either voluntarily or otherwise.
Melting Pot United States, Family Weekly (magazine), 2709
2709; February 5, 1976; Congressman Mineta (D-California) calls attention to a magazine article in which several Members of Congress whose parents were immigrants, including Muskie, are interviewed on the issue of preserving ethnic awareness rather that total assimilation. During the first half of the 1970s, considerable attention was being paid to the entire issue of assimilation to the prevailing U.S. culture, not least by politicians seeking to capitalize on it.
Letter: Portland (Maine) Committee of Correspondence project, 19634, 10136
Portland ( Maine) committee or Correspondence: tribute, 19634
Text: Declaration of Aspirations, Portland (Maine) Committee of Correspondence, 19634
Portland (Maine) Committee Of Correspondence, 19635
10136; Although reflected in the Index, this page number contains no relevant Muskie text of any kind; it is evidently an error.
19634, 19635; June 22, 1976; Muskie talks about a group of Portland, Maine students who have decided to celebrate the Bicentennial by creating a modern-day Committee of Correspondence modeled on those of the colonial and pre-revolutionary period to reinvigorate the study and understanding of U.S. history and citizenship, through correspondence with students at other schools in the state and around the country, as well as overseas American schools.
Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies: bill (H.R. 14239) making appropriations, 20201
Table: Distribution of budget authority in H.R. 14239, 20201
20201; June 24, 1976; Muskie comments on H.R. 14239, the appropriations bill funding the Justice Department as well as the State and Commerce Departments, and notes that the overall totals are within budgetary guidelines.
Conference on the Powers of the Presidency and Watergate Reform: participation of Maine citizens, 26571
Presidency Powers, Roscoe Pound — American Trial Lawyers Foundation, 26571
26571; August 10, 1976; Muskie notes that three prominent Maine citizens took part in the annual conference named after former Chief Justice Earl Warren on the powers of the presidency, which developed specific recommendations for ways in which Congress should recapture its appropriate role in the federal system after the abuses of the Watergate scandal. Although the fallout from Watergate did lead to a number of substantive legislative enactments, including campaign finance reform and the War Powers Act, most of the recommended rebalancing of executive and legislative authority remains a function of personality and political leadership, not law.
Letter: Civil rights attorneys fees, Representative Rodino and IRS Commissioner Alexander, 32184
Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act (S.2278) to enact. 32184
32184; September 23, 1976; Muskie clarifies his action on a proposed Goldwater (R-Arizona) amendment to a bill providing that the prevailing party in a civil rights law suit be entitled to have attorneys’ fees paid by the losing side. The Goldwater proposal would have extended this principal to cases in which the Internal Revenue Service was involved, thus creating a situation in which the costs of suing the IRS would be reimbursed in any instance in which the suit was successful. The distinction between these types of cases was that in the case of civil rights suits, the payment would be made by the losing private party; in the case of suits against the IRS, the payment would be made from tax dollars, which would equate to potential taxpayer subsidies to bring suits against the IRS.
MISCELLANEOUS
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Mitchell, Clarence M.: expressing gratitude for contributions (see S. Res. 353), 993
993; January 27, 1976; Muskie’s name is listed as one of the cosponsors of S. Res. 353, a Humphrey (D-Minnesota) resolution expressing the gratitude of the Senate for the contributions made by Clarence Mitchell to the development and enactment of civil rights law throughout his career with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Washington Bureau of the NAACP. Mitchell at this time was serving as Ambassador to the United Nations.
New York City to Vanceboro by Train, Douglas McVicar, Yankee magazine, 1291
1291; January 28, 1976; Muskie illustrates the dearth of passenger rail service in Maine with the story of a journalist who traveled by passenger rail from New York City to Vanceboro, Maine, via Montreal, Canada.
Mitchell, Nettie: tribute, 3548
Maine Profiles: Some Recollections of Life in Rural 19th Century Maine, Lynn Franklin, Maine Telegram, 3548
3548; February 18, 1976; Muskie shares a news story about an 89-year-old resident of Maine who describes some of the scenes of her youth. Since 1976 was the Bicentennial celebration of the nation’s birth, many broadcasters and advertisers ran special programs and short segments, many of which featured descriptions of the past by older citizens, such as Nettie Mitchell.
Worthley, Mary Ginn: tribute, 3564
How the Lady Fights, Elizabeth Starratt, Yankee magazine, 3564
3564; February 18, 1976; Muskie celebrates the career and achievements of a Maine volunteer who has given her time to such causes as raising the pensions of retired school teachers, and serving on a state commission on mental health and welfare, as well as a range of other charities.
Sumner T. Pike Dies (sundry), 4381-4384
4381-4384; February 25, 1976; Muskie notes the passing of Sumner Pike, a resident of Lubec with whom he served on the Campobello International Park Commission, and whose earlier service to government in the administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman spanned a dozen years.
Mansfield, Senator Mike: tribute, 5311, 30733
5311; March 4, 1976; Muskie reacts to the announcement that Senator Mansfield (D-Montana) will not seek reelection in 1976, and is stepping down as Senate Majority Leader, saying that his style of leadership, while not the same as Lyndon Johnson’s, who he succeeded, has given the Senate and individual Senators the ability and space to do what they are capable of doing. The common complaint about Senator Mansfield at the time was that he was insufficiently partisan, and allowed too much leeway to Senators who felt little compunction about causing delay and obstructing business. During this period, the Senate was a far more bipartisan body than the House; minority members presided over debates in rotation with majority members; committee budgets were reasonably generous to minorities, and the tradition did not include slashing attacks on other members, all aspects of the Senate which changed quite dramatically in the succeeding three decades.
30733; September 16, 1976; Muskie takes part in the formalized tribute to Senator Mike Mansfield (D-Montana) which is part of Senate tradition when a leader resigns, making a statement that describes what he thinks of Mansfield’s qualities and leadership.
National Beta Sigma Phi Week; designate (see S.J. Res. 76), 7547
7547; March 23, 1976; Muskie becomes a cosponsor of a Dole (R-Kansas) resolution, to designate a “National Beta Sigma Phi Week”. Beta Sigma Phi is a non-academic sorority which had its beginnings in Abilene, Kansas in 1931, and lobbied energetically for cosponsors for this resolution in the Senate.
Kosciuszko — Hero of Two Worlds, Thomas Fleming, Reader's Digest, 8777
Kosciuszko, Tadeusz: tribute, 8778
8777, 8778; March 31, 1976; Muskie comments on a Bicentennial article focused on Tadeusz Kosciuszko, the Polish military engineer whose role in the battle at Saratoga led to the first major victory by Americans in the Revolutionary War against the British Empire. Muskie often emphasized the role of prominent Poles in U.S. history.
So You're Coming to Bicentennial Washington, Changing Times (publication), 10348-10350
10348; April 9, 1976; Muskie recommends a visitors’ guide to Washington D.C. that notes the preparations and particular celebrations of the bicentennial, such as the anticipated opening of the Air and Space Museum, along with information about transportation, lodgings, restaurants and other tourist fare.
Bicentennial celebration, 22245
22245; July 2, 1976; Muskie speaks about the meaning of the nation on the eve of the Bicentennial celebrations, and laments the remoteness of government from so many of the citizens it allegedly represents and governs.
Legion Elects Kennebunk Man Commander, Portland (Maine) Press-Herald, 28116
28116; August 27, 1976; Muskie congratulates William J. Rogers, a constituent from Kennebunk, Maine, on his election as national commander of the American Legion for 1976 and 1977.
Mansfield, Senator Mike: tribute (see S. Res. 553), 30979
30979; September 17, 1976; The Senate by voice vote passes S. Res. 553, a resolution commending Senator Mansfield (D-Montana) for his 16 years of service as Senate Majority Leader. Muskie is listed as a cosponsor, along with the bulk of the Senate membership.
Pastore, Senator: Tribute, 31754
31754; September 22, 1976; Muskie pays tribute to Senator Pastore (D- Rhode Island) on the occasion of his retirement from the Senate. Pastore was the first Italian-American to be elected to the Senate, and served for 26 years.
Douglas, Paul H.: eulogy, 32320
32320; September 24, 1976; Muskie speaks about the career of the late Senator Paul Douglas (D-Illinois) and the shared interest they had in Maine, where Douglas graduated from Bowdoin College, in Brunswick. Senator Douglas was best known for his efforts to preserve one-man, one-vote reapportionment against the threat of constitutional amendments to overturn the court ruling, Baker v. Carr, on which it was based.
Symington, Senator Stuart: tribute, 33789
33789; September 30, 1976; Muskie discusses the career of Senator Symington (D-Missouri) who is retiring from the Senate, noting that he served as the first Secretary of the Air Force under President Truman, and formed one of the small group of Senators willing to stand up to McCarthyism in its time.
POLITICS, CAMPAIGN REFORM
1976 94th Congress, 2nd Session
Remarks in House: State of the Union: counter message, 697
697; January 22, 1976; Congressman John B. Anderson (R-Illinois) says that Muskie’s response to the President’s State of the Union message contains more of the same Democratic prescriptions and fell flat. In fact, both Muskie’s televised response and the original Ford State of the Union address itself both fell rather flat. President Ford spoke of a "new realism" and promised not much in the way of anything; Muskie argued that Ford should have spoken about greater efficiency in how government operates. The President at the time was facing a serious challenge to the GOP nomination from former California Governor Ronald Reagan, while polls showed him down against presumptive Democratic candidates such as Hubert Humphrey (D-Minnesota). Congressman Anderson himself went on to run as an independent in the 1980 election, when Reagan was the GOP nominee.
State of the Union — Democratic View, by, 747-749
747-749; January 23, 1976; Senator Humphrey (D-Minnesota) endorses Muskie’s speech in response to the President’s State of the Union remarks. At this time, it was a tradition for the opposing party to demand a form of "equal time" from the broadcast television networks when the President gave a widely covered speech. In a period before the emergence of cable television, the three national networks along with public television stations and a relative handful of independent stations could deliver a virtually national audience when they broadcast a speech simultaneously. At the same time, the "equal time" requirement was in effect, mandating that as part of the public service performed by a broadcast station in exchange for access to the airwaves, a reasonable opportunity was to be granted to the opposing political viewpoint when matters of public policy were broadcast.
Study: White House and the Press Under Gerald R. Ford, National Press Club, 3556-3559
3556-3559; February 18, 1976; Muskie highlights a report by the National Press Club, examining the condition of working relations between the press and the Ford White House in the wake of the Watergate scandals. Relations between the Nixon White House and the media, never good, deteriorated precipitously during Nixon’s first term and by the time of his second term, were so acrimonious and bitter that in the wake of Watergate, there was a strong sense on both sides that something fundamental had gone wrong and needed to be corrected. One result was the effort by the National Press Club to systematically examine the working relationship and issue findings in the hope, not only of regaining media credibility, which many thought was seriously damaged by the Watergate and Agnew episodes, but also restoring a sense of the media’s proper role in the system.
Although President Ford’s ascent to the White House was marked with statements of honest intentions, his pardon of Nixon barely a month after being sworn into office, the negotiations for which bypassed his then-press secretary, Jerry terHorst, left the media at the time feeling strongly that they had been intentionally misled. TerHorst resigned the day the pardon was announced.
Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976: amend bill (S.3065) to enact, 6002
6002; March 10, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of Amendment 1436, a Mondale (D-Minnesota) amendment to set up a commission for the purpose of examining the presidential nominating process and reporting proposed reforms in 1977. The somewhat anarchic manner by which presidential nominees are selected has long offended many members of both major political parties, but the desire for uniformity and predictability has never triumphed over the equally potent local and partisan passions that come into play whenever practical changes are suggested.
Government Programs, Democratic Party Platform Committee, by, 16436
16436; June 3, 1976; Muskie testifies before the Democratic Platform Committee in behalf of making the "sunset" idea of reform a central plank in the Party’s platform. He argued that being knowledgeable about government programs was not enough as long as inefficiency and waste plagued the delivery of services by government.
Watergate Reorganization and Reform Act: enact (see S. 495), 23006
23006; July 21, 1976; Muskie is added as a cosponsor to S. 495, a Ribicoff (D- Connecticut) bill known as the Watergate Reorganization Act, on passage of the measure, in part to ensure that it had the formal cosponsorship of a majority of Government Operations Committee members. This was a largely bipartisan bill which enjoyed the support of the minority members of the committee.
SENATE RULES, HOUSEKEEPING
1976 94th Congress, 2nd Session
Conferee, 4, 2124, 12185, 14172, 24578, 29492, 30457, 30756, 31274
When a proposed bill is passed in the Senate and the House, each chamber’s version is often different. To reconcile these differences, a conference committee is named, usually consisting of senior members of the authorizing committees in each house, which proceeds to hold meetings and vote on which version of the bill ought to be sent to the President for signature. Conference committees are temporary by nature; such authority as they have expires upon the report of the conference committee, which must then gain majority votes in both the House and the Senate.
4; January 19, 1976; Muskie is named as a conferee on H.R. 8235, the Federal Aid Highway legislation on which debate occurred in 1975.
2124; February 3, 1976; Muskie is named a conferee on H.R. 200, the House version of the Fisheries and Conservation Act, dealing with the 200 mile conservation zone.
12185; May 3, 1976; Muskie is named a conferee on S. Con. Res. 109, the first concurrent budget resolution, setting spending targets for Fiscal 1977
14172; May 17, 1976; Muskie is named a conferee on S. 3201; the Public Works Employment Act.
24378; July 29, 1976; Muskie is named a conferee on S. 5, the Government in the Sunshine bill, a measure to open up committee meetings to public attendance and scrutiny.
29492; September 9, 1976; Muskie names the conferees members on the Second Budget Resolution, S. Con. Res. 139.
30457; September 15, 1976; Muskie is named a conferee on S. 2710, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.
30756; September 16, 1976; Muskie is named a conferee on H.R. 7108, a bill authorizing environmental research, development and demonstration programs.
31274; September 20, 1976; Muskie is named a conferee on S. 3219, the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Senate: privilege of the floor, 125, 3841, 10161, 10276, 10279, 18282, 18846, 20204, 28770, 29433, 29443, 34375
Under the rules of the Senate, staff are permitted on the floor of the Senate only if they are listed at the beginning of each Congress as having floor privileges and they must vacate the floor when a vote occurs. The Senate doorkeepers maintain these lists and grant access only when there are not too many staff on the floor already and only for limited periods of time. If a Senator wishes to have staff members on the floor throughout a debate, unanimous consent must be obtained; this is routinely granted, but the formality of the request is preserved.
125; January 19, 1976; During debate on the Magnuson (D.- Washington) fisheries bill, S.961, creating the 200-mile fisheries conservation zone, Muskie asks that Jim Case be granted the privilege of the floor.
3841; February 19, 1976; During debate on S. 22, a copyright revision bill, Muskie asks that Al From be granted the privilege of the floor.
10161; April 8, 1976; Before beginning debate on S. Con. Res. 109, the first budget resolution, Muskie asks that a number of Budget Committee staff be permitted the privileges of the floor.
10276; April 9, 1976; During debate on S. Con. Res. 109, the first budget resolution, Muskie asks that a member of Senator Javits’ (R-New York) staff be granted the privilege of the floor.
10279; April 9, 1976; During debate on S. Con. Res. 109, the first budget resolution, Muskie asks that Don Nicoll and Al From of his staff be given the privilege of the floor.
18282; June 15, 1976; Muskie asks that Al From have privilege of the floor during debate on S. 2744, the lobbying reform act.
18846; June 17, 1976; Muskie asks that budget committee staff have the privilege of the floor during debate on H.R. 10612, the Tax Reform Act of 1976.
20204; June 24, 1976; Muskie asks that Jim Davis be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on the tax bill, H.R. 10610.
28770; September 1, 1976; Muskie asks that a number of Public Works Committee staff have the privilege of the floor during consideration and voting on S. 2710, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments.
29433, 29443; September 9, 1976; Muskie asks that a number of Budget Committee staff be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on S. Con. Res. 139, the second concurrent budget resolution, along with the committee staff of several of his colleagues on the Budget Committee.
34375; October 1, 1976; During debate on S. 3219, the Clean Air Act conference report, Muskie asks that a number of Public Works Committee staff members, on the majority and minority staff, be given the privilege of the floor.
Legislative program, 1327, 25179, 34417
1327; January 28, 1976; When Senator Byrd (D- West Virginia) seeks a unanimous agreement to hold a vote on a day care bill at a certain time, Muskie interjects that there is a potential budget related problem with that bill which he is trying to resolve. What the Record does not reflect is that when such interruptions occur, they are often followed by a request for a quorum call, which is a kind of Senatorial "time out" during which official proceedings (and the recording of them) are suspended while Senators talk to each other and ascertain what the problem is and how to resolve it. Usually, these time-outs are of little significance, but the fact that the intervening discussion is not recorded (or televised) means that following Senate debates and proceedings can be a confusing experience.
25179; August 3, 1976; During the debate on S. 3219, the clean air act amendments, Muskie and several other Senators argue over the allocation of time under a unanimous consent agreement. Because the agreement specified a time for a vote, and because other Senators objected to changing that time, the debate time allocated to interested Senators cannot all be used. This is a common problem whenever a bill is being filibustered or when one side wishes to delay action on a bill. A consent agreement locking in a time to vote cannot be abandoned or ignored unless all Senators unanimously agree; if Senators have not used up the debate time allocated to them until just before the vote, often enough there will not be enough time for each of them to fully use debate time before vote time rolls around.
34417; October 1, 1976; As it became evident that the conference report on the Clean Air Act was being successfully filibustered, Senator Byrd (D-West Virginia), acting in the place of the Senate Majority Leader who had left on an official trip to China, noted that he would bring up an adjournment motion to finish the Congressional session on October 1. Muskie responded by trying to make the case for a later adjournment, but failed. When a measure such as this is not acted upon before a Congress adjourns, it must be reintroduced in the new Congress the following year, thus requiring much of the same work to be done over again, evidently a frustrating outcome for the author of any bill.
Electronic calculators: permit on Senate floor, 10159
10159; April 8, 1976; Immediately before the beginning of the debate on the first concurrent budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 109, Muskie makes a unanimous consent request that Senators and staff be permitted to have and use small electronic calculators on the floor of the Senate. He notes that the rule which allows hand calculators on the Senate floor has not yet been changed to allow electronic calculators without a unanimous consent request.
Cloture, 15906, 16471, 21229, 28256, 28572
Cloture is the term used to describe the process by which a filibuster can be ended in the Senate. At the time of this vote, the requirement was that a cloture petition, signed by no fewer than 16 Senators, be presented to the Senate, by being formally presented to the desk where Senate business is filed, and that a cloture vote, a vote on the petition, be held no sooner than 48 hours thereafter. A successful cloture vote requires the affirmative votes of three-fifths of all Senators, meaning at least 60. Signing a cloture petition was a way for a Senator to indicate stronger-than-average support for a position in favor of or against the pending legislation.
15906; May 28, 1976; Muskie is listed on a cloture petition to end debate on a substitute amendment to H.R. 8532, a bill that authorized State Attorneys General to bring antitrust suits on behalf of state citizens, designed to allow the prosecution of price-fixing cases in which individual damages might be quite minor while aggregate damages could still be substantial.
16471; June 3, 1976; Muskie is listed on the second cloture petition on H.R. 8532, the so-called parens patriae bill, authorizing state Attorneys General to bring triple-damage antitrust suits on behalf of state citizens.
21229; June 29, 1976; Muskie is shown on a cloture petition filed on Labor-HEW appropriations bill, H. R. 14232, which was being threatened with a filibuster because the bill struck a House-passed ban on spending Medicaid money for abortions.
28256; August 27, 1976; Muskie is shown on a further cloture petition filed on H.R. 8532, the Anti-trust Parens Patriae bill with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
28572; August 31, 1976; Muskie is again shown on the fourth cloture petition on H.R. 8532, the antitrust bill, which was the subject of strenuous lobbying and opposition from the business community.
Postmasters: amend bill (H.R. 6512) for relief of certain, 15334, 15597
15334; May 25, 1976; In the course of considering a routine bill dealing with postal deficiencies charged to specific postmasters, Senator Byrd, on behalf of Muskie, offers an amendment to allow time served on either of the partisan Senatorial or Congressional Campaign Committees to be counted towards Civil Service retirement benefits, up to a limit of ten years. At this time, the partisan campaign committees of both parties had long been housed in official Senate and House office buildings, and it was extremely common for their staff members to ultimately become Congressional staff members. The purpose of the amendment was to provide some pensionable coverage for the time such staff had put in at jobs which were not official Congressional jobs but which enjoyed a close and continuing relationship with members. As post-Watergate campaign reforms took hold, congressional campaign committees were moved out of official buildings, although it is fair to say that they maintain close relationships with their Democratic and Republican Members of Congress.
15597; Nothing on this page dealing with Muskie; spending bill comments on p. 15599, but that is on the sunset bill. DOUBLE CHECK THIS AGAIN. IS IT PAGE 15397, PERHAPS? OR CHECK ON THE BILL NUMBER ITSELF AND SEE WHERE THAT FITS.
Philip A. Hart Office Building: designate extension of Senate Office Building (see S. Res. 525), 28224
28224; August 27, 1976; Muskie is shown as one of many cosponsors of S. Res. 525, a resolution to name the new Senate office building for Senator Phil Hart (D-Michigan). The building was not completed at this time, but Senator Hart’s illness was
Legislative branch: bill (H.R. 14238) making appropriations, 29171, 29363, 29364, 29373
Table: Legislative branch appropriations, 1977, 29373
29171; September 7, 1976; Muskie makes a brief argument during debate on H.R. 14238, the legislative branch appropriations bill, that a House-passed freeze on salaries for Members of Congress should not be challenged, and the freeze allowed to stay in effect.
29363, 29364; September 8, 1976; One of the provisions of H.R. 14238 involved modifying the cost-of-living allowance for federal annuities to eliminate a 1-percent add-on that had been legislated in 1969. Under the system of inflation adjustment in place at the time, federal retirees were eligible for a cost-of-living increase in their pensions only if inflation were 3 percent or more for 3 consecutive months. If inflation ran below 3 percent, no cost-of-living increase was warranted. In 1969 the argument was successfully made that because of the 3-month requirement, by the time any cost-of-living adjustment was made, recipients would have waited a long time for it, so a 1-percent add-on was created to compensate for the time lag. As inflation increased dramatically in the 1970s, it became evident that one result of this was to overcompensate annuitants for inflation, so Congress determined that one of its budgetary savings in this year would be to eliminate the 1-percent. Because it applied to military retirees as well as to civil service retirees, it was a politically touchy move and greatly opposed by those affected. Muskie describes its costs.
29373; September 8, 1976; Muskie briefly comments that the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, H.R. 14238, falls within the budgetary guidelines for this purpose.
TAXES, BUDGET, FISCAL POLICY
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Report: Committee on the Budget, 1240, 4330, 6243, 10643, 18568, 20279, 21317, 22069, 23606, 24476,27048, 28617, 29089, 30646, 31492, 33331, 34664
1240; January 28, 1976; Muskie reports an original resolution, S. Res. 364, authorizing additional expenditures by the Committee on the Budget for inquiries and investigations.
4330; February 25, 1976; Muskie reports a section 303(a) waiver for H. J. Res. 801, the supplemental appropriations for railroads, Report No. 94-650, and one for the conference report on H.R. 11045; the Rehabilitation Act Extension, Report No. 94-651.
6243; March 11, 1976; Muskie reports a section 303(a) waiver of the Budget Act for S. 3015, an airport expansion and development bill, Report No. 94-696.
10643; April 13, 1976; Muskie reports a section 303(a) waiver of the Budget Act for the conference report on H.R. 8325, the Federal-Aid Highway Act, Report No. 94-750.
18568; June 16, 1976; Muskie reports a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for S. 3557, Report No. 94-950.
20279; June 24, 1976; Muskie reports a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for the River Basin Monetary Authorizations Act, Report No. 94-985.
21317; June 29, 1976; Muskie reports H.R. 14114, a bill to increase the temporary debt limit, Report 94-1014, from the Budget Committee.
22069; July 1, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 474, a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for H.R. 8603; Report No. 94-1028.
23606; July 23, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 488, waiving section 402(a) of the Budget Act in connection with H.R. 13359, Report No. 94-1050.
24476; July 29, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 494, waiving section 402(a) of the Budget Act for H.R. 10339, an act to encourage the direct marketing of agricultural commodities, Report 94-1057.
27048; August 23, 1976; Muskie reports S, Res, 495, waiving section 402(a) of the Budget Act, but adversely, with regard to H.R. 10138, Report No. 94-1159.
28617; August 31, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 512, a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for S.3737, Report 94-1191
29089; September 7, 1976; Muskie reports two budget waiver resolutions, both providing section 402(a) waivers of the Budget Act, one for S. 3554, Report 94-1202, S. Res. 513; and one for S. 3081, Report 94-1203, S. Res. 514. He also reports S. Con. Res. 139, the second concurrent budget resolution. Report 94-1204.
30646; September 16, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 535, a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for P.L. 93-344, Report No. 94-1251, and S. Res. 546, another section 402(a) waiver for S. 3800, Report No. 94-1252.
31492; September 21, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 547, a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for S. 1302 and H.R. 13555, Report No. 94-1269.
33331; September 29, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 558, a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for H.R. 9719, Report No. 94-1339.
34664; October 1, 1976; Muskie reports S. Res. 566, a section 402(a) waiver of the Budget Act for H.R. 15136, Report No. 94-1379.
Committee on the Budget: authorize additional expenditures (see S. Res. 364), 1252
1252; January 28, 1976; Muskie reports an original resolution from the Budget Committee, S. Res. 364, authorizing the committee’s budget for the coming year, and its right to hire staff and use consultants. This is the routine authorizing resolution that each committee’s chairman submits once a year.
Committee on the Budget: notice of hearings, 1254, 3503
1254; January 28, 1976; Muskie announces that the Budget Committee will hold hearings on the First Concurrent Budget Resolution focused on the Administration’s budget, on February 3..
3503; February 18, 1976; Muskie announces a further four days of Budget Committee hearings from February 23 through February 26, to examine the competing spending priorities to be addressed in the First Concurrent Budget Resolution.
Committee on the Budget: notice of hearings, 4758
4758; March 1, 1976; Muskie announces six more days of Budget Committee hearings beginning with three days on March 2 and a further three days on March 9 to examine specific elements of the budget as a preliminary to writing the First Concurrent Budget Resolution.
Letter: Curb Presidential abuse of 45-day rescission period, correspondence with Representative Ottinger, 9275
9275; April 2, 1976; Congressman Ottinger (D-New York) notes that he has written to the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Muskie, expressing the hope that something can be done to release impounded funds before the 45-day grace period is up, and says that the response he received is encouraging. The budget overhaul included sections dealing with the presidential impoundment of appropriated funds, and under its provisions, a president could request a rescission of appropriated funds and if Congress rejected the rescission, the funds would remain unexpended for 45 days.
Congressional budget: setting forth for fiscal 1977 (see S. Con. Res. 109), 9323
9323; April 5, 1979; Muskie reports S. Con. Res. 109, an original resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. government for fiscal year 1977 (and revising the congressional budget for the transition quarter beginning July 1, 1976) with additional, minority and supplemental views, Report No. 94-731.
1976 budget: enforcement procedures and status, 9331
Report: Ground Rules and Procedures for Implementing Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act for Fiscal Year 1976, 9332
Report: Status of the FY1976 Congressional Budget Adopted in H. Con. Res. 466, 9333
9331-9333; April 5, 1976; Muskie discusses the means by which the spending ceilings in the fiscal 1976 budget will be enforced, and informs his colleagues that a new procedure will be put into place to allow a point of order made against a bill on cost grounds to be ruled on by the Parliamentarian, by means of the Congressional Budget Office giving the parliamentarian’s office up-to-date budget spending estimates as legislation is adopted. This enforcement process is based on the Senate’s own rules: Any Senator making a point of order is asking the Parliamentarian to rule whether or not the point of order is well taken. A parliamentary ruling can only be overturned by a vote of 60 or more Senators. Although the interplay of the Senate rules and the rules in the Budget Act is complex, when the Act was first adopted, it proved to be an adequate means for a corporate body like the Senate to gain control over its actions.
Congressional budget: resolution (S. Con. Res. 109) setting forth for fiscal year 1977, 10161-10164, 10178, 10181, 10182, 10271, 10273, 10277-10283, 10285-10290, 10293-10298, 10475, 10476, 10483, 10484, 10490, 10498, 10499, 10506-10508, 10516-10519
Table: Fiscal year 1977 revenues (sundry), 10162
Congressional budget: resolution (S Con. Res. 109) setting forth for fiscal year 1977, 10275, 10290
Table: Budget authority and outlays, 10283
Second Budget Resolution, Senator Abourezk, 10325
10161-10164; April 8, 1976; Muskie makes his opening remarks in the debate on the First Concurrent Budget Resolution, S. Con. Res. 109, explaining the tradeoffs between different functions of the budget, and making the case that the totals recommended by the Budget Committee reflect a spending path that will reduce the prior year’s deficit. He is followed by Senator Long (D-Louisiana), who offers an amendment, and Senator Dole (R-Kansas) who speaks in behalf of the absent ranking minority member of the Committee, Senator Bellmon (R-Oklahoma).
10178-10182; April 8, 1976; As debate on the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 109, continues, Muskie argues against a Cranston (D-California) amendment to add funds to the veterans function of the budget, along the grounds that the Budget Committee has provided an inflation cushion for benefits. These early skirmishes around budget numbers show that the success of the veterans’ lobby in gaining an entire "functional category" exclusively for veterans’ affairs carried a downside, which was that it made those programs more transparent and therefore in some ways more accountable than the broader categories such as "education and training" which subsumed many individual programs. As is common in Congress, when one side appears to be losing the debate on the merits, the debate begins to turn on the amount of time, energy and effort devoted to developing the desired outcomes.
10271, 10273; April 9, 1973; As the Senate approaches a vote on the Cranston (D-California) amendment to add $800 million to the veterans’ programs function of the budget, the debate becomes a referendum on preserving and strengthening the budget process, as the leadership of both the majority and minority express their intention to vote against the amendment, which is ultimately defeated 52 to 22.
10277-10283; April 9, 1973; Claiming that it is up to the Budget Committee to propose legislation to achieve a $2 billion saving in spending by the Finance Committee, Senator Long (D- Louisiana) argues that he knows he cannot write such a bill and get anyone to vote in favor of it. Muskie points out that this argument is a disingenuous way to challenge the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee over spending levels and priorities, as other Senators join in to clarify the issues under discussion.
10285-10290; April 9, 1976; Debate on the Long (D-Louisiana) amendment continues, with Muskie repeatedly making the point that the budget resolution is not a line item resolution, dealing with particularly programs in detail, but a general set of spending limits in broad budgetary categories. Senator Allen (D-Alabama) offers an amendment to the Long amendment to eliminate the same $2 billion in spending that Long would eliminate, and to retain the $2 billion in spending reductions that the Budget Committee’s resolution proposes, for an overall net budget reduction of $2 billion, and Muskie makes a motion to table the Long amendment, taking the Allen amendment with it.
10293-10297; April 9, 1976; In continued debate on the first budget resolution, Muskie again explains that the language in the report does not constitute either a policy directive or a mandate to any other committee to take some action or refrain from taking some action, but merely reflects the assumptions Budget Committee members must necessarily make when they are considering spending limits for the different functions of the budget. After some clarifying debate, Senator Taft (R-Ohio) withdraws his amendment. Muskie then makes a similar explanation to Senator Randolph (D-West Virginia) on a synthetic fuels issue.
10298; April 9, 1976; Muskie says he agrees with and supports a Domenici (R-New Mexico) amendment to shift $200 million from the education/training function to the community and regional development function, without increasing or decreasing total budgetary spending.
10325; April 9, 1976; Muskie asks that a statement by Senator Abourezk (D- South Dakota) on the budget resolution, laying out his objections to it.
10475, 10476; April 12, 1976; Muskie engages in debate over a Bayh (D-Indiana) amendment to add $100 million to the criminal justice function of the budget, so as to make certain juvenile delinquency prevention programs can go forward.
10483, 10484; April 12, 1976; Muskie discusses the Buckley (I-New York) amendment to reduce overall budget authority by $4.5 billion and budget outlays by $6.8 billion in a variety of functions, including employment, education, health care, postal services, income security and environmental and natural resources. It was notable at the time that few of these broad-based cuts ever included defense spending within their purview, although virtually all areas of domestic spending were considered to be ready for trimming. At this time, Senator Buckley was facing reelection, a contest he ultimately lost, and this amendment was apparently part of his reelection strategy.
10490; April 12, 1976; Muskie and his Republican ranking member, Senator Bellmon (R-Oklahoma) point out that the cuts already made by the committee in the defense spending request are going to be difficult to make, because they affect people directly, and that therefore the Bayh (D-Indiana) proposal to take an additional $2.6 billion out of defense would create a massive funding shortfall. Although in retrospect it is easy enough to see that few of the spending decisions in the mid-1970s severely impacted the national defense, at the time, the issue was a subject of much frenzied debate and lobbying from both sides.
10498, 10499; April 12, 1976; Muskie and others discuss the agriculture spending ceilings established in the first budget resolution as compared with a Huddleston (D-Kentucky) amendment to raise them, based on a claim that the Budget Committee’s spending limits imply a cut in agricultural research spending.
10506-10508; April 12, 1976; Muskie responds to a Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) amendment to increase funding levels for certain jobs programs and to halve the assumed health care savings in the budget resolution, making the point that much of what is intended by the proposal has been assumed by the Budget Committee and can fit within the spending levels recommended in the resolution. The debate reflects how quickly Senators grasped the fact that overall spending increases could be shown as more moderate by taking into account presumed increases in taxes and reductions in welfare spending.
10516-10517; April 12, 1976; In response to a question about funding for housing agency guarantees, Muskie assures Javits (R-New York) that since the Budget Committee is not a line-item committee, the authorizing and appropriations committees can allocate funding within a function in any way they choose, subject to full Senate approval.
10518-10519; April 12, 1976; Muskie responds to a query from Mansfield (D-Montana) about whether the budget rules will permit a bill compensating crime victims to be passed if it is sent over from the House after May 15, by pointing out that the Senate may waive the rule that requires an authorizing bill to be reported by May 15.
10613; April 13, 1976; Muskie is shown as a signatory on a letter to Senate colleagues urging that they join in a pre-April 15 floor discussion of the need for tax reform.
Income tax: reform, 10617, 10618
10617, 10618; April 13, 1976; Muskie joins his colleagues in speaking about the value of tax reform to close loopholes at a time when the new budget process is beginning to make all spending and cutting decisions more transparent, and argues that many of the revenue-losing provisions in law have the effect, not of lightening the tax burden, but of shifting it from taxpayers to others. This is a phenomenon that has been repeatedly noted by tax reformers through the years.
Tax Reform Act of 1976: proposed amendment, 13590
13590; May 12, 1976; Muskie is listed as one of the cosponsors of a Ribicoff (D-Connecticut) amendment No. 1641, to the tax bill, H.R. 10612. The Ribicoff amendment was designed to establish clear guidelines for lobbying activity by tax-exempt organizations that would not endanger their tax-exempt status, and modeled on a bill that Muskie had been introducing and seeking passage of for several years. Muskie briefly speaks to that point.
Congressional budget: resolution (S. Con. Res. 109) setting forth for fiscal year 1977, conference report, 13667
13667; May 12, 1976; Muskie makes a statement about the conference report on S. Con. Res. 109, the first concurrent budget resolution, saying that it preserves fiscal discipline without the proposed tax increases requested by President Ford, and thus maintains the effort to produce additional jobs and economic growth in the face of still-high unemployment.
Federal expenditures provide taxpayers with annual accounting (see S. 3451), 14550
14550; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of S. 3451, a Moss (D-Utah) bill requiring that each annual tax instruction booklet include a chart listing federal spending with an indication of the percentage of spending going to different purposes. Moss argued that since the IRS mailed the tax instructions along with the forms to most taxpayers every January, a simple one-page listing of this kind would not constitute an onerous additional duty for the Treasury Department.
Letter: Tax Reform Act of 1976, by, 18546
18546; June 16, 1976; During opening debate on H.R. 10612, the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Senator Moss (D-Utah) makes the point that the tax bill as reported by the Finance Committee does not conform to the requirements of the first budget resolution, which he illustrates by producing a Dear Colleague letter from Muskie and Senator Bellmon (R-Oklahoma) and a response from Senator Long (D-Louisiana), the chairman of the Finance Committee, and his ranking member, Senator Curtis (R-Nebraska).
Tax Reform Act of 1976: bill (H.R. 10612) to enact, 18846-18851, 18872-18877, 19087-19096, 19103-19106, 19109-19112, 19384, 19392-19400, 19402-19404, 19613, 22009, 22065, 22815, 22816, 23108-23110, 24002, 24004, 25594, 25600, 25606, 25644, 25916-25918, 25931-25934, 25936, 25954, 26092-26094, 26115, 26159, 26181, 26188
Tax Reform Act of 1976: amend bill (H.R. 10612) to enact, 18873, 19401, 22065, 22815, 23771, 24000, 24479, 24553, 24731, 25250, 25656, 26150
Report: Federal Revenues (excerpt), 19393
Taxes and the Senate (sundry), 19613-19615
Text: First concurrent budget resolution, 19396
State of the Economy, Arthur Okun, Joint Economic Committee, 19111
18846-18851; June 17, 1976; The Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Long (D-Louisiana) leads off the debate on the tax bill with a strong defense of the Committee’s action in coming up with a mix of tax reductions and extensions that he claims falls within the Budget Committee’s guidelines on revenues for Fiscal 1977. Although Muskie agreed that for fiscal year 1977 the reported tax bill would come within budgetary limits, he argued that because the bill was not limited to proposals assumed in the budget, it would carry much greater costs in future years. The tax committee had, in effect, back-loaded the bill with a number of costly tax breaks beginning in the final quarter of the fiscal year and continuing in the following fiscal year, and Muskie contended that this was not what the Congress has voted for in adopting the overall budget.
18872-18877; June 17, 1976; Muskie begins to move to have a vote on what he says is the central issue at stake in the tax bill: whether or not the Congress should enact a one-year extension of a tax cut. He is challenged by Senator Long (D-Louisiana), but argues that it is important first to settle on whether the budget plan as passed by the Congress should be voided and the Finance Committee bill substituted in its place, before continuing with other tax reductions, incentives and changes, as set out in the Finance Committee’s reported bill, H.R. 10612.
19087-19096; June 18, 1976; Muskie takes up the argument against a Roth (R-Delaware) amendment which would provide that if the Muskie amendment to reinstate a full-year tax cut is approved, cuts in spending to reduce the revenue loss from that amendment would be mandatory. Muskie argues that changes in the budget resolution agreed upon by the Congress can be made only by legislation which has been referred to and reported by the Budget Committee, and raises a point of order against the Roth proposal. Senator Roth counters by making a motion to refer the tax bill to the Budget Committee with the instruction to report back immediately with the Roth spending cut instruction. After some extensive debate over the meaning of this instruction, Muskie moves to table the Roth motion.
19103-19106; June 18, 1976; Muskie returns to the same debate, arguing that while the Senate as a whole is entitled to change its mind, and often does, when a change is made in the dollar amount of expected revenues, it will affect the dollar amount of every other element of the budget, including spending, the federal deficit, and the level of debt. The situation on the floor was that while everyone knew the Senate was going to pass a full-year extension of the middle-income tax cut, there was much less unanimity about the $2 billion in revenue to be raised by closing tax loopholes. Tactically, the Chairman of the Finance Committee wanted to vote on tax loopholes first, because these are usually easy to defend on a one-by-one basis, and count on the universal desire for a full-year middle-income tax cut (in an election year) to overcome any concern about hiking the deficit. Issues of timing on votes are always part of the equation on the Senate floor, particularly when taxes are involved, and the only novelty in 1976 was that for the first time, the process had to be carried out against a backdrop of the existence of the budget process. At this point in the debate, the Chairman of the Finance Committee was conducted an unacknowledged filibuster against his own bill.
19109-19112; June 18, 1976; As the wrangling over the tax bill continues, the Chairman of the Finance Committee claims he has wanted to proceed in an orderly fashion which was upset by Muskie’s amendment for a full-year tax cut, and Muskie responds by saying he will not be not party to any agreements made while he was not present.
19384; June 21, 1976; In the continued impasse over voting for the Muskie amendment, Senator Long (D-Louisiana) offers an amendment to the Muskie amendment which consists entirely of technical conforming changes in tax law, repeal of obsolete language in the tax code and what he characterizes as other inoffensive provisions, to which Muskie responds that since these technical and conforming amendments are always the final action taken on a bill, he is not clear on the purpose of their being offered at this time, at the outset of votes, and refers to the delay in getting to his amendment. Muskie objects to the amendment, and Senator Long offers another.
19392-19400; June 21, 1976; Muskie argues that the second Long (D-Louisiana) amendment to his amendment attempts to hand the budget process over to the determination of the Treasury Secretary by having that cabinet member judge whether or not the additional $2 billion in tax expenditure reforms has been enacted when the whole tax bill is completed. Muskie’s point is that the budget law itself contains a reconciliation process by which individual spending and revenue items can be adjusted, but after all of the decisions for the year have been made, not in an ad hoc manner as in the Long amendment. This debate continues the basic argument, which on Muskie’s side is that along with raw budget numbers, the Congress sets an economic policy underlying those numbers which cannot be entirely disregarded by the action of a single committee.
19402-19404; June 21, 1976; The argument between Muskie and Senator Long (D-Louisiana) continues, with both parties objecting to the parliamentary maneuvering of the other, and finally concluding that the best remaining way to proceed is for both Long and Muskie to withdraw their amendments and begin debating the rest of the tax bill.
19613; June 22, 1976; Muskie includes some editorial comments on his debate with Senator Long (D-Louisiana) and its implications for the budgetary process, which spell out quite plainly the scope and meaning of the Muskie-Long dispute.
22009; July 1, 1976; Muskie is involved briefly in a short discussion of a possible time agreement on H.R. 10612, the tax bill. Normally it was never possible to reach a time agreement on an overall tax bill because too many Senators feared that they would be disadvantaged by having debate come to an end before they were ready to vote, notably the Chairman of the Finance Committee.
22065; July 1, 1976; Muskie’s amendment to the tax bill, H.R. 10612, is submitted and a time agreement for its debate and a final vote is offered.
22815, 22816; July 20, 1976; The Senate finally, after several more weeks, reaches the point where the Muskie amendment to provide for a full fiscal year’s tax reduction can be brought up, and Muskie proceeds to make the argument that the state of the economy and the economic recovery makes it important to maintain the reduced rate of withholding on wages, so that there is not a sudden and substantial increase in taxes three months before the fiscal year ends.
23108-23110; July 21, 1976; Muskie speaks about a Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) amendment to increase the tax credit for the elderly, which was last updated in 1962, noting that as the debate on the tax bill has gone on, the Senate has moved further away from the revenue numbers in the budget resolution, and while he supports what Kennedy is doing, he may be constrained to vote against it on the grounds that it would violate the budget resolution.
23771; July 26, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a Percy (R-Illinois) amendment No. 2087, to H.R. 10612, the tax bill. The purpose of this amendment was to preserve elements of an earlier bill which limited the use of the Social Security number in the administration of state programs. In H.R. 10612, language preventing the de facto use of the Social Security number as a universal identifier had been weakened, and the purpose of the amendment was to restore the protections in the Privacy Act of 1974.
24000, 24002, 24004; July 27, 1976; Muskie takes part in a discussion of the Percy (R-Illinois) amendment which would limit the use of the social security number to specified purposes, and in a discussion with the Chairman of the Finance Committee, the amendment is temporarily withdrawn so that it may be reviewed in greater detail.
24479; July 29, 1976; Muskie shown as cosponsor of a Javits (R-New York) amendment No. 2118, to modify a proposed change in tax credits for corporations electing to adopt Employee Stock Ownership Plans, a form of sharing-the-wealth favored by the Finance Committee Chairman, which would have granted such corporations a tax credit equal to 2 percent of its capital investment and backdated to 1975. Javits would have maintained the existing 1 percent tax credit and eliminated the backdated bonus credit.
24553; July 29, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of the Percy (R-Illinois) amendment No. 2087, to limit the use of the Social Security number as an identifier for state tax purposes only, when Percy speaks about his amendment.
24731; July 30, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a Hathaway (D- Maine) amendment No. 279, which would allow smaller boats to be eligible for the capital construction account with the Commerce Department to facilitate the renovation and replacement of vessels.
25250; July 30, 1976; When Javits (R-New York) discusses the merits of his ESOP tax amendment, Muskie is mentioned as a cosponsor, but does not take part in the discussion.
25656; July 30, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of a Nelson (D- Wisconsin) amendment No. 2157, to limit the extent of tax benefits available under the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC) to companies earning more than $2 million per annum from exports.
25594; August 4, 1976; In a discussion of Employee Stock Ownership Plans [ESOP], Muskie notes the costs in revenue foregone of creating an incentive program for stock ownership that relies upon higher investment tax credits for companies that establish such plans, and says that the costs of the proposal are moving away from the goal of raising revenue by closing tax loopholes.
25600; August 4, 1976; Muskie outlines in greater detail his objections to the broadening of benefits for corporations that establish Employee Stock Option Plans, including the fact that the benefits would go disproportionately to the better-paid workers, the generous tax benefit requires no additional corporate contribution whatever, and if widely adopted, the expansion of the investment tax credit incentive would simply constitute a transfer of federal tax revenues to such employees as work for participating companies.
25606; August 4, 1976; Muskie objects to the revenue costs of a proposed Curtis (R-Nebraska) amendment which would provide for a tax credit of the lesser of 15 percent of income or $1500 for the purchase of common stocks, phasing out between incomes of $20,000 and $40,000 per year. The revenue cost of this proposal, Muskie says, entirely eliminates any savings from closing loopholes in tax laws.
25644; August 4, 1976; Senators engage in a brief discussion to establish debate time limits for amendments to be taken up the following day, and Muskie notes that he will oppose the Roth (R-Delaware) amendment on tuition credits.
25916-25918; August 5, 1976; Muskie makes a motion to indefinitely postpone consideration of Roth (R-Delaware) amendment for a college tuition credit, on the grounds that the cumulative tax loss is much larger than anything the Congress would countenance as a direct spending proposal, but that the effect of lost revenue would be the same.
25931-25034, 25936; August 5, 1976; Muskie makes a motion to recommit the bill to the Finance Committee with instructions that the Committee report back the extension of the basic tax cut and the $35 tax credit and nothing more. A motion to recommit has the effect of stripping off all incremental amendments and, in effect, starting afresh on the same legislation. Motions to recommit do not often succeed for that reason. In this instance, the argument was in reality over whether the Budget Committee would have the jurisdiction and the power to influence revenue measures, so it was a more than usually heated debate. It also became somewhat notorious because in one late-night session, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Long (D-Louisiana) said that if Senators were going to demand to know what they were voting on, they could be there all night.
25954; August 5, 1976; Muskie engages in a colloquy with Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) on the costs of an estate tax change which the Finance Committee had proposed, and which would reduce the yield from estate taxes by one-third, or $2.2 billion.
26092-26094; August 6, 1976; Muskie speaks in opposition to a Finance Committee amendment arguing that because it is tailored to avoid a Fiscal Year 1977 impact, does not mean it will not cost money and make balancing the budget harder in Fiscal 1978 and thereafter. The tactic of writing money-losing proposals so that they come into effect in a future year is a common way for their authors to avoid having to justify the costs associated with them. The actual amendment in question would have increased by one percent per year the exclusion of capital gains taxes on any asset held longer than five years. Muskie noted that since the capital gains tax was half the regular rate of tax, the effect of this amendment would be to further reduce it for long-held assets introducing an incentive that would tend to reduce capital mobility.
26115; August 6, 1976; Muskie joins Senator Long (D-Louisiana) in opposing a Dole (R-Kansas) amendment which would increase the personal exemption of all taxpayers and their dependents by $250, on the grounds that this would cause a $7.1 billion revenue reduction and would thereby increase the deficit. The Dole amendment embodied a proposal by President Ford in the previous year.
26150; August 6, 1976; Muskie is listed as one of the cosponsors added to a Hart (D-Colorado) amendment No. 329, to create a Commission on Tax Simplification and Modernization, which the Senate had adopted without debate.
26159; August 6, 1976; Muskie argues that the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC) tax rules constitute a revenue drain and create an artificially lower corporate tax rate without doing anything substantial to actually increase exports, and that a Nelson (D-Wisconsin) proposal to modify the DISC rules and save $1.7 billion by reducing, not eliminating, the favorable tax treatment of income generated by overseas sales.
26181; August 6, 1976; As debate on the tax bill winds up, Senator Long (D-Louisiana) offers sense-of-the-Senate language as an "instruction" to Senate conferees, that they will strive to achieve the budget resolution’s figure for revenues in reaching agreement with the House on the final form of the bill. Muskie says he’s not impressed by this concession and notes that he intends to vote against final passage of the entire bill because it has consistently undercut the budget resolution’s requirement that $2 billion in revenue increases be achieved through reform of tax expenditures.
26188; August 6, 1976; Muskie makes a final statement on the Senate version of the tax bill, iterating some of the points he has tried to make throughout the debate, and noting that if the revenue numbers cannot be changed significantly during the conference process, Congress will have the option of increasing the budget deficit in the second budget resolution.
Debt limit: bill ( H.R. 14114) increase temporary, 21500
21500; June 30, 1976; When the Senate takes up H.R. 14114, the increase in the temporary debt limit, the bill has been amended by both the Finance and Budget Committees, by the former to require that a second budget resolution make spending cuts if the tax bill ends up costing more than an overall $15.3 billion in revenues, by the latter to restate the fact that during consideration of the second budget resolution, the Senate will take into account economic conditions and any other unforeseen circumstances. The proposed amendment by the Finance Committee would be an instruction to the Budget Committee to cut spending to make room for a tax bill; the Budget Committee countered with a nondescript amendment restating the obvious. When the bill is called up, Senator Long (D-Louisiana) says that after consultation with Muskie, he thinks both proposed amendments should be pulled and the bill simply passed as approved by the House. Muskie agrees.
Federal budget control: fiscal year 1976 record, 22240
22240; July 2, 1976; Muskie delivers a report that shows the congressional budget process has worked to keep spending down and to prevent expansion of the deficit, and notes that this result is a reflection of the congressional economic program, not of the President’s preferred economic plan, which would have led to entirely different economic results.
Table: Taxes, 22241
22241; July 2, 1976; Muskie explains why he thinks the general individual tax cut enacted in the previous year should be extended, rather than being allowed to expire, which would mean a sudden and substantial increase in the rate of tax withholding from individuals’ paychecks.
Senate budget scorekeeping reports for fiscal 1977: new series, 23033
23033; July 21, 1976; Muskie describes the new format of the budget scorekeeping report, which was a tool developed to help bridge the differences between the way the Administration breaks down its budgetary allocations and the way the Congress distributes spending authority among its committees. The fact that each branch of government counts its spending priorities differently hugely complicates the task of making meaningful comparisons between presidential budgets and congressional budgets. At this time, when a great deal of political capital was invested in budget descriptions and spending arguments, Congress was more than normally sensitive to the way that its priorities could be portrayed by the president.
Congressional Budget Reform: authorize additional printing (see S. Res. 496), 24244
24244; July 28, 1976; Muskie introduces S. Res. 496, a resolution to authorize the additional printing of 3000 copies of the document, “Congressional Budget Reform.”
District of Columbia: bill (H.R. 15193) making appropriations, 28395
28395; August 30, 1976; Muskie comments on the budget implications of H.R. 15193, the bill providing funding for the District of Columbia, which at this time included the funding for the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, a chartered organization for the purpose of revitalizing Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C.
Congressional budget: resolution (S. Con. Res. 139) revising, 29433-29435, 29439, 29441, 29442, 29460-29465, 29467, 29468
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act: extension, 29434
Employment: create, 29434
Table: Budget summary, 1977, 29434
Report: Budget — 1980 Outlook (excerpt), 29437
Letter: Congressional budget resolution, Senator Long, 29463
Congressional budget resolution, Senator Chiles, 29465
Congressional budget: resolution (S. Con. Res. 139) revising, conferees appointed, 29492
29433-29443; September 9, 1976; Muskie makes his opening statement on the second concurrent budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 139, emphasizing that it forms part of a longer-term path to the goal of a balanced budget in 1980, and describes some of the economic variables that have to be taken into account as the Senate adopts the second set of spending limits in this resolution, which are binding and apply to all subsequent legislation that affects fiscal year 1977.
29460-29468; September 9, 1976; During continued debate on S. Con. Res. 139, the second concurrent budget resolution, Muskie responds to a query by Senator Javits (R-New York) about the funding for an extended unemployment compensation program, to Senator Taft (R-Ohio) and others about specific budget items of interest to them.
29492; September 9, 1976; At the close of Senate debate on S. Con. Res. 139, the second budget resolution, Muskie requests that conferees be appointed.
Memorandum: 1981 projections — the platform, Doug Bennet, Report: Congressional budget revision (S. Con. Res. 139), committee of conference, 30433
Congressional budget revision: amend resolution (S. C Res. 139), conference report, 30434
Congressional budget revision: resolution (S. Con. Res. 139), conference report, 30434-30436, 30442
Congressional Budget Revision, Committee of conference (joint explanatory), 30436-30439
Congressional Budget, Senator Moss, 30442
30433-30443; September 15, 1976; Muskie begins debate on the conference report on S. Con. Res. 139, the second concurrent budget resolution by noting that a technical requirement that the conference be reported in disagreement reflects the fact that Congress is actually reporting a projected deficit lower than that approved by either House of Congress in the spring. The conference report is adopted.
Budget Process, Washington-based corporation representatives' breakfast, by, 30674
30674; September 16, 1976; Senator Bellmon (R-Oklahoma) notes that Muskie has made an effort to explain the budget process to private sector groups and encourages his colleagues to reach out to groups in their states during the recess for the same purpose. He includes a lucid Muskie description of the budget process with his remarks.
Tax Reform Act of 1976: bill (H.R. 10612) to enact, conference report, 30720
30720; September 16, 1976; Muskie notes that the conference report version of the Tax Reform Act, H.R. 10612, has been returned for a Senate vote with much preferable features than the version of the bill approved by the Senate. He indicates that he will vote in favor of the conference report, even though he opposed the original bill when it first passed the Senate, because it does recapture $1.6 billion in tax preferences and exclusions, which is much more than the additional $300 million lost to such special treatment by the Senate version of the bill.
Budget: congressional spending control, 31767
Congress: fiscal discipline and economic responsibility, 31767
Memorandum: Congress and Recovery, 31768
Table: Budget of 94th Congress, 31768
Memorandum: Savings from Presidential vetoes. Doug Bennet, 31768
Table: Senate committee allocations 31770-31772
Economic conditions: achievement of 94th Congress, 31767
31767; September 22, 1976; Muskie comments on the congressional economic program, applied through the use of the budget process, and contrasts it with the economic policy that the Ford administration would have preferred to see and concludes, not surprisingly, that the congressional alternative was preferable. This was a predictably partisan series of observations in an election year, made to provide additional ammunition for Democrats seeking election in November. At this time, President Ford was struggling to combat the conservative arguments against him by emphasizing the huge "savings" that resulted from his very-frequent bill vetoes, and castigating the Congress for its wild over-spending. It is fair to say that neither side was being dispassionate.
Elbow prostheses: bill (H.R. 11321) to suspend duty in charitable cases, 32l80-32l82
Property taxes: deduction for a portion of tenants' rent, 32180-32182
Tenants rent: deduction for portion going to property taxes, 32180-32182
Letter: Property taxes deduction for tenants, by, 32181
32180-32182; September 23, 1976; Muskie notes that the amendment being offered by Senator Buckley (I-New York) to a minor tariff bill does not affect Fiscal Year 1977 revenues, so it does not technically fall afoul of the Second Concurrent Budget Resolution, but notes that its revenue effects in later years are substantial, and objects to it on that ground. The Buckley proposal would have permitted apartment renters to deduct part of the property taxes due on their apartments from their income without affecting the tax deduction allowable to the owner of the building.
Table: Senate Committee allocations pursuant to Sec. 302 of Congressional Budget Act, 32333
Letter: Allocation to Senate committees under second concurrent resolution, Douglas J. Bennet, 32333
32333; September 24, 1976; Muskie notifies the Senate that modified committee allocation information is being provided to each committee to facilitate committee plans on the following year’s budget.
Committee on the Budget: order to submit reports, 33010
33010; September 28, 1976; Senator Byrd (D- West Virginia), who is also the Majority Whip, makes a request that he be permitted to submit reports waiving sec. 402(a) of the budget act in Muskie’s absence. There is no Muskie text at this location.
Charitable institutions: legislative activities, 34931
34931; October 1, 1976; Muskie makes a brief statement describing his long-term interest in modifying tax law so as to permit charitable organizations to engage in some lobbying without penalty to their donors, and notes that Maine charities as well as national ones have had an interest in this law, which is now enacted, having been incorporated into the 1976 Tax Reform Act.
TRADE
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Fish netting: Provide lower rate of duty (see S.3270), 10024
10024; April 8, 1976; Muskie is listed as a cosponsor of S. 3270, a Packwood (R-Oregon) bill to lower the rate of duty on synthetic fish netting. Although the tariff on natural fiber netting had fallen to about 17 percent, the tariff on synthetic fish netting remained at 32.5 percent plus 25 cents per pound-weight, equivalent to about a 45 percent tariff rate. These nets were mostly not produced in the U.S., and the high tariff encouraged their purchase from Canada. The Customs Bureau was undertaking a drive to crack down on overseas purchases of fish netting, while maintaining the high tariff rate. The added costs of the tariff on even relatively inexpensive commercial gill nets amounted to $1250 on a $4000 purchase, while for the large purse seine nets used in the tuna fishery, the base cost of $200,000 would be increased by $77,000.
HOUSING, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
1976 2nd Session, 94th Congress
Report: Waterville (Maine) Community Development Plan, Mayor Richard Carey, 1285
Letter: Waterville development plan, President Ford, 1285
Letter: Waterville development plan, Creeley S. Buchanan, 1286
Memorandum: Waterville community development plan, City Council, 1286
Letter: Waterville development plan, Joseph Ezhaya, 1286, 1287
List: Waterville Advisory Committee Community Development, 1287
List: Waterville properties acquired under community development, 1287
Memorandum: Waterville community development, Boys'/Girls' club, 12878
Report: Waterville Housing Authority, 1288
Report: Waterville (Maine) Community Development Plan, Kennebec Valley Girls Club, 1288
1285-1288; January 28, 1977; Muskie notes that Waterville has a community development plan, one of the first in the nation, which has involved both community leaders and the business community to acquire and develop property to revitalize the downtown of the city.
12878; This page number is evidently a misprint.
Report: Federal Budget and the Cities, National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors,1883-1906
1883-1906; February 2, 1976; Muskie notes that the annual publication of the two major urban organizations comment on the President’s budget proposals as well as commenting on the new congressional budget process and its implications for urban needs.
Table: Effects of possible supplementals on HUD-Independent agencies, 20844
Department of Housing and Urban Development independent agencies: bill (H.R. 14233) making appropriations, 20844, 20845, 20848, 20857, 20863, 20865
Letter: Maine pollution abatement projects, Dennis A. Purington, 20864
20844-20848; June 26, 1976; Muskie explains some of the complexities in the HUD appropriation, H.R. 14233, which also includes funds for Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency, a particular interest of his. Muskie then goes on to speak about the particular elements of the Environmental Protection Agency about which he has concerns.
20857; June 26, 1976; In further debate on H.R. 14233, Muskie notes that a Durkin (D-New Hampshire) amendment providing additional benefits for veterans is being called up before any such benefits are authorized by the Veterans Affairs Committee and may, in fact, conflict with other budgetary provisions that emerge from the Committee over the course of the session.
20863, 20864; June 26, 1976; As Senators make statements about other elements of the HUD appropriation, H.R. 14233, Muskie notes that contrary to widespread the claims about difficulties implementing the Clean Water Act, the state of Maine has managed its waste treatment program so that none of the 26 pulp and paper plants in the state have been forced to close down or move, and all of them will be in compliance with the 1977 standards in 1977.
20865; June 26, 1976; In continued discussion of the programs covered by the HUD appropriation, H.R. 14233, Muskie reacts to the issuance of "enforcement compliance schedule" letters by the Environmental Protection Agency to preemptively delay the July 1, 1977 statutory deadline for pollutant discharges into water, and makes the argument that agency letters do not have the authority to change the applicable law by extending statutory deadlines for compliance.
Housing Act of 1949: amend (see S. 3679), 22720
22720; July 20, 1976; Muskie is shown as a cosponsor of S. 3679, a Hathaway (D- Maine) bill designed to improve elements of the Farmers Home Loan Administration to allow family corporations to apply for home loans, to clarify the authority of the Secretary to establish escrow funds, and to direct the Secretary to pay local property taxes for property held by the Farms Home Administration.
Housing Authorization Act of 1976: bill (S. 3295) to enact, conference report, 22813
22813; July 20, 1976; Muskie discusses the authorizing act for housing programs, S. 3295, and notes that although it authorizes $2.6 billion more than assumed in the first budget resolution, he will not oppose the conference report because the appropriation for Fiscal 1977 was passed at a level $7 billion below the assumptions of the first resolution, so there are no foreseeable pressures on the housing element of the federal budget.