June 18, 1976
Page 19103
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Oregon put the right question: Can the Senate change its mind?
My answer is the same as his, yes.
But that is a different proposition than has been argued by so many on his side on this issue, that what the Finance Committee proposes is consistent with what the Senate said earlier. That is not consistent.
So if he understands that what we are doing is proposing that the Senate change its mind, of course the Senate can change its mind, and I have said that as vehemently as anybody on the floor, including the Senator from Oregon.
So if the Senate chooses to change its mind and to change the underlying assumptions of the budget resolution, which is a congressional resolution, that is the Senate's prerogative, of course.
But I just do not like to see the Senate do it under the pretense that it is not changing its mind, that this policy represented by this bill is the same policy as in the first concurrent resolution, because our job is, as the Budget Committee, to point out to the Senate what we think the Senate has done in the budget resolution, and when what is proposed would change that resolution, or prevent its targets, or change its underlying economic assumptions.
That is our responsibility. That is not a law; it is a policy.
If the Senate chooses to say it will obey laws but ignore its own policy, it can do that, too. I have no way, the Budget Committee has no way, of enforcing the policy of the first concurrent resolution, absolutely none. That ought to be clear. I have never once said, may I say to the Senator from Oregon, that supporting the Finance Committee bill represents a violation of law. I have not said that. I have not said it once. I have not implied it.
Let me say something about the economic assumptions in the first concurrent resolution. Some have referred to that as something 3 months old. Let me assure the Senate that it is our function to stay on top of the economic trends and economic developments on a day-by-day basis. We do not take a fix in February and then not look at the economy again until the Finance Committee tax bill is on the floor. We check and recheck the state of the economy against every time we have had to make a decision on the budget.
In April, when we submit it to the Senate, at the time of the conference between the House and Senate conferees, the conference report comes to the Senate. We undertake, as we do with the Senate budget scorekeeping report — a weekly report not required by law — to stay on top of every relevant piece of information bearing upon the budget or on the economy on a continuing basis.
We have a responsibility of advising the Senate of changes.
In the remarks I made yesterday in which I referred to the state of the economy, those were made on the basis of up-to-date evaluation of the requirements of the economy.
So, of course, I say to the Senator the Senate can change its mind. If the Senate wants to end the tax cuts as of July 1 next year, of course that is the prerogative of the Senate. Clearly, and I emphasize that and underline that, doing so is not violating the law; it is making law. But I will also say that that is different policy than the one we adopted in the first concurrent resolution.
That policy underlies all of the numbers in the first concurrent resolution, not just the revenue number but also the spending number, the deficit number, and the debt number. They are all related, including a lot of the functional spending numbers.
The state of the economy and the extent to which it is stimulated or not stimulated by our revenue policies affects unemployment and, hence, the costs of all the programs to which the unemployed turn for relief, comfort, and support. So the whole thing is interrelated. I hear those who disagree with me argue that this one number, $362 billion, is all there is to revenue policy in the first concurrent budget resolution. That is simply not to understand the interrelationship of every number in the budget resolution and all of the detailed numbers which will be filled in by those who are following the policy of the first concurrent resolution.
How do we estimate the income security function? It is an entitlement law. The formula spells out what we spend, but the economy may have more to do with the amount of the spending than the formula in the law. So the economic policy that the Congress adopts in the first concurrent resolution has a great deal to do with whether or not our estimates about what unemployment compensation will cost, or our estimates of what food stamps will cost, or our estimates of what veterans benefits will cost depend upon whether or not we implement the economic policy that is described in the report of the Budget Committee.
If we are to conclude out of all of this debate that all there is to budget process is the numbers in the budget resolution, then we reduce the budget process to nothing more than a mathematical exercise that can be handled by computers better than it can be by the Senator from Maine. The numbers in the budget process have to have an underlying economic policy.
I never hear the President of the United States submit his budget without also submitting an economic report which is the basis of his budget. Indeed, his budget message refers to the assumption of his economic report. The two are interrelated.
Yet, it is said on the floor of the Senate, "That ain't so" with respect to the congressional budget process, that the report is just so much rhetoric, that it is meaningless.
I say to the Senator that although we may not be as expert as we ought to be or hope to be in evaluating the economy and its needs, the budget report is our best articulation of the best economic policy that we can recommend to the Senate. It is on the basis of that policy that we produce the specific numbers that the Budget Act requires to be put into the budget resolution.
One cannot responsibly look at those numbers, accept them, support them and defend them, without accepting the underlying economic policy behind them. I do not use the term "responsibly" in denigration.
If one wants to change the numbers, he should change the policy. If he changes policy, then he has to be prepared to accept the consequences in terms of the other numbers. That is all I am trying to say.
I am not trying to impose my will or my interpretation of all this on the Senate. It is evident from the disagreements which have arisen that I have not very clearly articulated what it is that I am trying to say about this budget process.
The budget process is the Congress as a whole. It is not the Budget Committee of either the House or the Senate. The only disciplinary force in this process is the Congress as a whole.
The Budget Committee is not a disciplinary body. It is not a law enforcement body. All it is is a tool, an instrument, for keeping constantly before the Senate and the Congress as a whole what we have done so that what we do next, or what the Senate does next, is done in the context of what we have done in the past, with a full appreciation of the consequences of any changes that take place.
That is what it is.
I am fully aware that my amendment is going to cost some tax revenues. I accept that, not because I am willing to accept that decision standing by itself, but because I would offset that loss, as the Congress agreed to offset it in May, by supporting tax reform, or whatever other word if one does not like the word "reform," proposals.
But if the Senate as a whole chooses not to use that method of offsetting, but chooses instead to allow the deficit to increase, or chooses instead to cut some of the direct spending, the direct appropriations, the Senate can certainly change its mind about those things.
When we change our minds, there are two things that we ought constantly to bear in mind. First, let us know what we are doing when we do it. That is primarily our responsibility, because we are supposed to stay on top. But second, use the processes and the procedures of the Budget Act to accomplish the change.
Certainly it is envisioned in the budget process that between the first resolution and the second one, the sovereign bodies of Congress can enact legislation that would change the targets of the first resolution. That is envisioned. That is what the reconcilation process is all about. But I do not think we ought to lean on that reconciliation process to the point where we make the first targets meaningless, because if we develop some sloppy habits with respect to the first targets, those sloppy habits have a way of persisting through the rest of the process. We have seen that. I have seen it in 18 years. We have a way — or had a way that I hope never recurs — of individually voting for big, glamorous spending proposals, because we had rationalized in our minds that somewhere down the line we were going to vote for some cuts or some tax increases, and so we eased our consciences; and yet those things never happened.
Now, we are supposed to bring all those probable or possible consequences to the attention of the Senate.
With respect to my amendment, I know there is a conspiratorial view around here of what those on the other side of any issue are doing, or what they have in mind. I know I have entertained such views myself, and I expect others entertain them about me.
But with respect to the amendment, Senators ask, "Cannot the Senate change its mind?"
I say, "Yes, of course it can."
Back in May we said we were going to extend the tax cuts through fiscal 1977.
Can the Senate change its mind about that? I say, "Yes, of course it can." So I have offered an amendment that makes it possible for the Senate to change its mind. So it seems to me that the Senator from Oregon and I are arguing the same point.
If you want the Senate to change its mind on that point, it is a rather critical point, because it bears upon all the other numbers in the budget resolution — the 17 functional totals and the overall spending total, as well as the revenue total.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. In just a second. It is a rather key matter, and since it has been made a key matter, it seems to me it ought to be up front, easy to be decided.
The amendment is very clear and straightforward. The matter is before us; it seems to me we ought to act on it.
If the Senate decides that our policy in the first concurrent resolution was wrong, I will accept that. But my job will be to tell the Senate how that change of mind impacts on the rest of the budget, and I am willing to perform that duty if it falls to me. But if, on the other hand, we reaffirm that policy of the first concurrent resolution, we will have to proceed in the other direction. That is as near as I can state my position.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Nebraska had asked me to yield. I yield to him.
Mr. CURTIS. In the opinion of the distinguished Senator from Maine, what did we adopt when the budget resolution was last before us?
Mr. MUSKIE. We adopted a resolution with a certain number of numbers in it, accompanied by a report, which is specified in the Budget Act.
In that report, we undertook to describe the underlying economic policies and the specific assumptions which the law tells us we must spell out.
That, to me, is as much a part of the budget policy as flesh is a part of the body.
Mr. CURTIS. Was there at any point anything in the debate which showed a congressional intent that the adoption of the resolution was an approval of how we arrived at these figures or, more significantly, at any point was there anything in the debate which informed Senators that a vote for that resolution was a vote for the details in arriving at the overall receipts and expenditures set forth in the resolution?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Does the Senator want me to take that?
Mr. MUSKIE. Just a moment. I want to get some figures out of the committee report to respond to the Senator,
Let me introduce those figures by referring the Senator again to this provision of the Budget Reform Act:
The report accompanying such concurrent resolution shall include but not be limited to . . . (4) an allocation of the level of Federal revenues recommended in the concurrent resolution among the major sources of such revenues.
In that committee report, at the top of page 7, that allocation is listed:
Individual income tax, $160.9 billion. Corporation income tax, $57.8 billion. Social insurance taxes, $106.6 billion. Excise taxes, $17.8 billion. Estate and gift taxes, $6 billion. Customs duties. $4.3 billion. Miscellaneous revenues, $7 billion. Net increase from tax expenditure legislation, $2 billion.
Total, $362.4 billion.
So anybody looking at the $362.4 billion, which is all that was on the face of the resolution, if he is at all interested in knowing where it comes from—
Mr. CURTIS. No, no
Mr. MUSKIE. He has to look at the report, and the report is required by the law.
Mr. CURTIS. It is true the law requires the committee to accompany their resolution with a report which informs the Senate where they got their figures. But my question is this: Was there a clear discussion in the debate that the Finance Committee, in their deliberations, were bound by the figures in the report? I doubt very much if there was. I think if that had been a major issue at that time, there would have been considerable debate on it, and they would have understood each other.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator saying to me that no provision of law which was not actually debated on the floor of the Senate is binding or effective?
Mr. CURTIS. No, what I am saying—
Mr. MUSKIE. We came to the floor of the Senate with the resolution and the report. Are we mandated to see to it that every word in each document is brought consciously to the attention of every Senator?
Mr. CURTIS. No. What I am saying is that if you were contending then for a major change in senatorial procedure, which is what is involved here, whereby the decisions as to the details of the tax bill, the contents of the tax bill — the Senators were notified in the debate that they were approving those details.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know what the Senator means by a detail. Here we have in the committee report I think less than one page devoted to explaining how the Budget Committee got its revenue totals, and the Senator is telling me that the details in this tax bill were dictated by the Budget Committee or that we are trying to dictate the details of that bill.
Mr. CURTIS. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are not. Was there anything in what I read to the Senator that was anything more than an allocation of revenues among the major sources? There was not a word of detail, unless the Senator thinks that the total revenue is a mere detail and not a policy.
Mr. CURTIS. No. But the whole subject of debate yesterday was to the effect that the Finance Committee when they stayed within our overall figures of the resolution were in violation. My question is this: Was there anything to show that intent when the resolution was adopted?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The documents reported out by the Budget Committee.
Mr. CURTIS. No. What I am getting at: Did the Senator say to the Senate at large or for the benefit of the chairman of the Finance Committee that the adoption of this resolution means that we gather revenue according to our assumptions set forth in the report?
Mr. MUSKIE. Did I say it myself?
Mr. CURTIS. Did anyone say it in the RECORD?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is said in the report which itself is a part of the RECORD.
Mr. CURTIS. No, it does not say that.
Mr. MUSKIE. It certainly does.
Mr. CURTIS. The report does not say that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let us get it. Has the Senator read the report?
Mr. CURTIS. Yes, but the report does not say the adoption of this resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then these words will be familiar.
Mr. CURTIS. The report does not say that the adoption of the resolution means that the sources of revenue to reach the overall figure of revenue in the report is binding upon the Senate or the Finance Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. I just got through saying in a colloquy with our colleague, Senator PACKWOOD, that nothing we do is binding on the Senate.
Mr. CURTIS. Then why did the Senator spend all day yesterday contending that the Finance Committee bill was not in conformity with his resolution when it was?
Mr. MUSKIE. Because it is not.
Mr. CURTIS. Why is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. There are two different questions.
Mr. CURTIS. Why is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have explained it over and over again to my utter futility.
Mr. CURTIS. I agree with that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Because the Senator does not listen.
Mr. CURTIS. I agree with that. Will the Senator answer it?
Mr. MUSKIE. Because the Senator does not want to believe what I say.
Mr. CURTIS. I love to believe the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. He disagrees with what I say. He does not like what I say, because apparently it is a little uncomfortable. I mean we have established a budget process and somehow I see some squirming at the idea. What I am saying may label him as a violator of the budget's virginity.
Mr. CURTIS. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not saying any such thing.
Mr. CURTIS. Anything the Senator says would not make me squirm. He does not vote in Nebraska.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know why the Senator keeps pressing me to repeat what I know he has heard me say because the Senator has been in the Chamber. I am not interested in killing time for him. I know that the managers of this bill do not want a vote on this amendment today.
Mr. CURTIS. Oh, if it had not been for the demand of the Committee on the Budget to assert jurisdiction we would have had this bill on its way yesterday.
Mr. MUSKIE. Who has the floor? I am not going to be a part of the Senator's filibuster. I offered an amendment and I am not going to repeat ad infinitum the rationale for my position which I think is clear in the RECORD. If the Senator has not read yesterday's RECORD, it is there. If he wants to know the rest of it, it is in the report the Budget Committee submitted. I am not going to prolong this discussion simply to help the Senator kill time. I am ready for a vote.
Mr. CURTIS. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am ready for a vote on this amendment, and I have an appointment out of the Chamber. If another Senator wishes to pick up this discussion at this point, fine. If I really thought that the Senator were putting questions to which he did not know my answer I would answer him.
Mr. CURTIS. I do not want to kill time. I thought I would get some good answers.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's purpose is one purpose only, that is to get me to help him kill time, and I am not about to do that.
(Mr. HATFIELD assumed the Chair.)
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I am curious. Did the Senator from Maine leave the Chamber?
Mr. CURTIS. Yes.
Mr. PACKWOOD. He made the statement that the Budget Committee is on top daily of the economic assumptions upon which the report 3 months ago was made. I see one or two members of the Budget Committee present now. Correct me if I make a misstatement. But I think I am correct that the projections for unemployment are now lower than were the assumed projections for unemployment when we adopted the Budget Committee resolution. I think the projections for the real growth in the gross national product are now higher than when we adopted the Budget Committee resolution. I think the projections for inflation are now lower than when we adopted the Budget Committee resolution.
Therefore, I do not think it is written in stone that we are inevitably going to pass and extend this tax cut beyond next June 30 if those trends continue. I would hate to have this Senate vote today for the Muskie amendment on the irrevocable assumption that if we do not vote for it now we are going to be faced with having to vote for some kind of tax increase or expenditure cut next June, a year from now.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield.
Mr. LONG. I believe the Senator knows how difficult it is to defeat a budget busting amendment which would propose that everyone get something. I have stood in the Chamber and sometime felt very lonely and abandoned trying to defend the fiscal responsibility of the Senate.
Mr. CURTIS. Everyone wanted something.
Mr. LONG. I was trying to defend fiscal integrity of the country against an amendment where 100 million people would get something.
I recall when Mr. Prouty offered his amendment on the social security bill. I called it the Prouty shoot-the-moon amendment because he was going to give a pension to everyone who was not getting a pension. He had overlooked in fact that his language was sufficiently broad that it failed to limit itself to only American citizens.
So, Charles de Gaulle would have gotten a pension, Mao Tsetung would have gotten a pension, and everyone in Africa, Asia, Greenland, anywhere in the world and in outer space would have been entitled to draw a pension if there was any way the Treasury could deliver the check to them.
I described that as a Prouty shoot-the-moon amendment. Even though the Senator agreed that the cost would be fantastic after the Senator modified it down so that only American citizens would get the pension, we succeeded in passing that. Everyone who did not get a pension, even though he had no claim to it whatever, would get a pension. That is one of the reasons the budget is out of balance today.
To try to maintain fiscal integrity, we need the support of everyone and particularly we need the support of the Budget Committee to try to hold off budget busting amendments. It is a sad situation and it puts us in a very difficult position fighting to save this country from bankruptcy when the chairman of the Budget Committee himself offers the biggest budget buster that has been offered here yet. We need, Mr. President, to try to educate the Senate about this and persuade Senators that they should not proceed in this irresponsible fashion.
Again, we do have this problem, and I would like to meet it. Does the Senate Finance Committee have the right to recommend a responsible tax bill inside the budget resolution? Do we have the right morally? Do we have the right legally? Do we have that right? There is no doubt whatever about our legal right. However, I point out that it would not have been subject to a point of order had the Finance Committee recommended a bill that went beyond the $15.3 billion. That would not have exceeded our authority. We could have so recommended, and it would not have been subject to a point of order. I would have hoped, had we done that, that Mr. Muskie would have been out here to oppose it, even though a point of order would not lie.
We stayed within the spirit as well as the letter. In good faith, we undertook to protect the fiscal integrity of the Government of the United States, and we recommended a bill and stayed within the $15.3 billion.
So we come to the floor; and apparently the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. MUSKIE's, does not agree with the way we stayed within the $15.3 billion. How does he want to protect the fiscal integrity of the country? He wants to offer an amendment that busts the budget by $1.5 billion. I submit that that is no way to stay within the $15.3 billion. That is exactly the opposite.
Furthermore, I would welcome a test, an honest straightforward test: Did the Senate Finance Committee, either morally, legally, or otherwise, exceed its authority or fail to do its duty when it recommended the tax bill we have before us, tailored to meet that $15.3 billion budget limitation? I hope we are going to settle it. I thought we had.
We discussed this matter on the floor; and Senator after Senator, including several who serve on the Budget Committee, said yes, they thought the Finance Committee did what it should do, as its conscience gave it the light to see it. I thought it was settled. So we proceeded to go on to the next thing.
I had been asking Senators to hold off on that amendment, to offer a substitute for title I until this matter could be settled. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it was not the prerogative of the Senator from Louisiana. It would not be appropriate for him to offer an amendment to recommit the bill with instructions, because I like it the way it is, the way it came out of committee. To move to recommit something I favor would not be appropriate. People might feel that they should vote for it because the Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the committee, made the motion. So I was very reluctant to make a motion for which I could not vote, and therefore I did not make the motion. The Senator from Maine did not see fit to do that, either.
Apparently, the Senator has chosen to throw his support behind the most popular budget busting amendments — or any other popular amendments — he can cast his lot with; and he contends, in view of the fact that he voted on the side of a budget busting amendment and other amendments that might not bust the budget, that his committee has been sustained ; that the Senate will have held that the Budget Committee has a right to dictate every last detail to the other committees with regard to what they should do because the Senate voted for an amendment that is very difficult for anybody to vote against.
It is difficult for a man to run for office and tell his constituents that he voted against cutting their taxes.
So the Senator offers an amendment that is not a fair test at all. It is an amendment of a budget busting nature. If he were offering an amendment to say that the Finance Committee had not done its duty, that would be different. I do not have any doubt that some of the things we did might be in error, and I cheerfully respect and urge every Senator to do his duty as he sees fit. If Senators think we made a mistake, by all means vote to correct it.
All that the Senator's amendment would do, if agreed to, would be to fuzz up the issue.
I think that if the Senator wants to contend that he has been sustained because he voted on the prevailing side, all he need do is let the clerk call the roll and answer to his name last, after the vote has been tabulated; so he can say, "I voted with the prevailing side, so the Budget Committee was sustained." That way, he can do it consistently and announce that he has been sustained on every point because he voted with the side that cast the largest number of votes.
However, I do not see that it sustains the Budget Committee to say that we will bust the budget because a member of the Budget Committee makes that kind of motion, no more than I see that it sustains the cause of piety for one of us to say that he is supporting his church and his preacher because he is engaged in sin.
Mr. President, the appropriateness of what the Senate committee did was discussed. I shall add to the RECORD again the discussion between Mr. PACKWOOD and Mr. MUSKIE:
... do I take that to mean it is not necessarily a mandate that we close $2 billion worth of loopholes, but that we could just as well raise the income tax or the corporate income tax $2 billion? You are just talking about $2 billion additional revenue, and the reference to tax expenditures does not necessarily mean so-called loopholes.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. The only mandatory number with respect to revenues is the revenue total that we have included.
We have, however, indicated in the report, as we are required, our view as to whether any revenue should be generated by tax reform. We have done that, so our view is in the report, but it is not mandated.
Mr. PACKWOOD. If the Finance Committee's judgment at the end of 2 weeks of hearings and markups, they found it impossible to close $2 billion of loopholes, and they chose to fit within the mandate of the Budget Committee by simply reducing the tax reductions from $17 billion to $15 billion and pick up $2 million that way?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
I read further on:
Mr. PACKWOOD. We are not necessarily committing ourselves to a $2 billion closing of tax loopholes — necessarily.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Then we are saying to the Finance Committee, "The collective judgment of the Senate is $362 billion. It is up to you, gentlemen, to determine how we go to that figure."
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. We, of course, would like to have the Finance Committee look at the Budget Committee report to get whatever insight it chooses to take from the Budget Committee's recommendations and the basis for the Budget Committee's judgment.
But in the last analysis, it is the Finance Committee's judgment, and I think the Senators and the Senate subsequently.
Mr. President, I think the legislative committee record is as clear as one could hope to make it that the Senator was making clear that the language which he chooses now to regard as a law, this language that appears in a committee report merely explaining how the Budget Committee reached a figure, was purely for the purpose of indicating how the Budget Committee arrived at a figure; and it was never intended for a moment to be a mandate on the Finance Committee.
As a matter of fact, the logic by which they arrived at that particular $17 billion the Senator is thinking about was really about the same logic that was recommended to them by the Finance Committee — just that you would take a particular figure, because that is what it would cost to extend the present tax cut, with the understanding that we could look at the energy bill to see where suggestions had been made that would help conserve energy, and look at other suggestions that would help improve the tax code, and look at suggestions that would do more good for people who need it more, and look at things that would help raise capital; that within that $17 billion tax cut we could shape up the kind of recommendations we wanted; that the Senate would consider that bill, looking at the recommendations of the committee and considering them on their merits.
I understand how a Senator can feel that he does not agree with a committee exercising its jurisdiction as it does. I know that I look at some of the things recommended by the Appropriations Committee; that if I do not see how we will ever find the money to finance all that, I may offer an amendment or support an amendment to try to reduce it.
But I do not call the Committee on Finance together and ask that we conduct a hearing, call in all the witnesses, or even hold an executive session; to pass judgment on the discretion of the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Public Works, the Committee on Armed Services, or some other committee, and attempt to tell them that they are violating the laws or the budget or anything else when they exercise their discretion within that which is assigned to them.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield to permit a vote on this amendment this afternoon?
Mr. LONG. In due time, I am willing to vote on the amendment. I am not willing to say at what time
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request to vote not later than 4 o'clock?
Mr. LONG. I will not yield for that purpose.
Mr. HOLLINGS. How about 5 o'clock?
Mr. LONG. I appreciate the freedom that is accorded a Senator to express his opinion. The last thing on earth I would do is deny it to someone else. I respect the right of Senators to explain their views.
Mr. HOLLINGS. What about 6 o'clock?
Mr. LONG. I appreciate the right of Senators to explain their views and, as much as I may differ with what someone has to say, I will fight to the bitter end to defend his right to say it. While I defend my own rights and defend that which I believe to be right, I must also defend the rights of others as well, because that is the only way democracy can function.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator defend our right to vote?
Mr. LONG. Of course I will defend the Senators' right to vote. Do not worry, I say to the Senator, the time will come. There will be a time, there is not the slightest doubt about it.
I am not going to urge the Senator to hold his breath until that happens, but I assure him that there will be a time. I urge all the Senators to feel confident that they are going to have an opportunity to vote on this matter.
Does the Senator from Alaska desire that I yield to him?
Mr. GRAVEL. No; I would like to have the floor on my own time.
Mr. LONG. I believe we should have some people here today. I did what I could to help muster a crowd for the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , and I think others should have the privilege of speaking to more than a sparsely inhabited Chamber. Therefore, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.